Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Smt.Sabeena W/O Altaf Hussain Ladiwala on 7 December, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100086/2018
BETWEEN:
Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office, R.K.Joshi Building,
Lamington Road, Hubballi,
R/by its Divisional Manager,
United Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
Seetha Smruti, Maruti Galli,
Belagavi-02.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. N.R.Kuppelur, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Sabeena W/o. Altaf Hussain Ladiwala,
Age 51 years, Occ: Housewife,
2. Miss. Aijaz Fatemah D/o. Altaf Hussain ladiwala,
Age 30 years, Occ: Service,
3. Miss. Zeba D/o. Altaf Hussain Ladiwala,
Age 25 years, Occ: Student,
4. Ali S/o. Altaf Hussain Ladiwala,
Age 23 years, Occ: Student,
CRP No.100086/2018
:2:
All R/o. Flat No.304, Magnolia Apartment-2,
CTS No.5957, M.G.Colony, Near Congress Well,
Tilakawadi, Belagavi.
5. The Director,
M/s.Naveen Hotels,
604/B, Gokul Road, Hubballi.
...Respondents
[By Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R1;
(R1 is the GPA Holder of R2, R3 & R4-
GPA is filed along with Vakalath,
Notice to R5 is dispensed with v/c/o. dated 16.11.2018)
---
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of
C.P.C., 1908, against the order dated 03.07.2018 passed in
MEP No.252/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Belagavi, accepting the Memo of calculation filed by
the Decree Holders.
This petition coming on for Admission through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made
the following:
ORDER
The Revision Petitioner herein who is the Judgment Debtor No.2 in MEP No.252/2013 in the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, (hereafter referred to as 'the Executing Court') has challenged the order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the said Executing CRP No.100086/2018 :3: Court, rejecting the Memo of Calculation filed by the Judgment Debtors and accepting the Memo of Calculation filed by the Decree Holders and holding that the Judgment Debtor No.2 is liable to pay the alleged balance amount of `1,86,539/- to the Decree Holders.
2. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are being represented by their learned counsel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is physically present in the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is appearing through video conference.
4. Though this matter is listed today for Admission, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
5. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court. CRP No.100086/2018 :4:
6. From the submission made by both sides and from the records placed before this Court, the admitted fact remains that, the present respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the Decree Holders in a motor accident claims case bearing MVC No.1089/2002 had instituted an execution petition against the Judgment Debtors, wherein the present petitioner was the Judgment Debtor No.2 in the Executing Court in MEP No.252/2013. During the pendency of the said case in the executing Court, both the parties have filed their Memo of Calculations, alleging the out standing liability payable by the Judgment Debtors to the claimants. The executing Court by the impugned order dated 03.07.2018, rejected the Memo of Calculation filed by the Judgment Debtor No.2 and accepted the Memo of Calculation filed by the claimants/Decree Holders. It is the said order, the Judgment Debtor No.2 has challenged in this revision petition.
CRP No.100086/2018:5:
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that, no opportunity to address his argument was granted by the Executing Court and it has straight away proceeded to pass the impugned order, rejecting his application.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that, the Executing Court has considered the Memo of Calculation and the fact that the Judgment Debtors had not produced any material including the Tax Deducted at Source certificate or the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the claimants to show that, he had deducted the tax at source and credited the same to the accounts of the claimants, before the Income Tax Authorities, as such, his memo was rejected.
9. A perusal of the impugned order and the certified copy of the order sheet of the Executing Court would go to show that, after both the parties filing their CRP No.100086/2018 :6: Memo of Calculation, the Executing Court proceeded to hear the matter in-part on 19.06.2018. On the subsequent date of hearing i.e. on 28.06.2018, it heard the arguments from the Decree Holders' side who appears to have stated that two Memo of Calculations were pending for orders. As such, on the very next date of hearing which was on 03.07.2018, it proceeded to pass the impugned order. Thus, it is very clear that, it did not give any opportunity for the Judgment Debtors particularly the present petitioner to make their submission on the Memo of Calculation filed by the parties in the Executing Court. Had such an opportunity been given to the Judgment Debtor No.2, probably he would have placed materials to meet the questions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein about the non-furnishing the details of the Tax Deducted at Source including the TDS certificate or the Permanent Account Numbers by the claimants, etc., CRP No.100086/2018 :7: Therefore, the impugned order deserves to set aside, with a direction to the Executing Court to hear both sides on the alleged Memos of Calculations said to have been filed by both sides and to pass order on the said Memos of Calculation, afresh and in accordance with law.
10. Ordering accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-