Karnataka High Court
Sharada W/O. Narayana Devadiga vs Shahul Ahmed S/O. Mohammed Wazi Sahib on 18 July, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2013
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 78134/2013 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1 SHARADA W/O. NARAYANA DEVADIGA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE,
TEMPLE STREET, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
2. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. NARAYANA DEVADIGA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE,
TEMPLE STREET, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
3. PAVITRA D/O. NARAYANA DEVADIGA
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
4. ARUNA S/O. NARAYANA DEVADIGA
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
:2:
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
5. SURESH S/O. MANJUNATH DEVADIGA
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
6. GANAPATI S/O. MANJUNATH DEVADIGA
AGE: 80 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
7. DURGADAS S/O. MANJU DEVADIGA
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
8. ESHWAR S/O. MANJU DEVADIGA
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
9. KUMAR S/O. MANJU DEVADIGA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
10. SHRIKANTH S/O. MANJU DEVADIGA
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
:3:
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, TEMPLE STREET,
MURDESHWAR, TQ: BHATKAL,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.: SURESH S BHAT, ADV)
AND
1. SHAHUL AHMED S/O. MOHAMMED WAZI SAHIB
- SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
(A) JUNIMAMA W/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 80 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(B) SHAMIM BABNU D/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(C) SHAZADI D/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(D) J.S. MOHAMMED HAYAT S/O. SHAHUL
AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(E) J S MIKTHARAHMED S/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:
:4:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(F) J S K MOULA S/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
(G) NASIM D/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SABED JEDDAH, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
2 MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O. SHAHUL AHMED
SAHEB JEDDAH
AGE: 63 YEARS,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
R/BY HIS GPA
SRI. MOHAMMED MEERAN S/O. SHABUL AHMED,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR,
TQ: BHATKAL
3 MOHAMMED MEERAN S/O SHABUL AHMED SAHEB
JEDDAH
AGE: 59 YEARS,
R/O. MAVALLI VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR, TQ:
BHATKAL
4 NARASHIMA S/O. MANJUNATH DEVADIGA
AGE: 73 YEARS,
R/O. MAVALLI-II VILLAGE, MURDESHWAR, TQ:
BHATKAL
... RESPONDENTS
:5:
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
DIRECTION OR ORDER IN ON I.A.NO.1,
DATED:30/06/2009 IN R.A.NO.59/2008, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, UTTARA
KANNADA, KARWAR AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY.HG.THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased appellant No.1, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are appellants Nos.2 and 3 and petitioner No.7 to 10 are legal heirs of deceased appellant No.6 in R.A.No.59/2008 who are seeking for a direction to District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar to dispose of I.A.I filed on 30.06.2009 - vide Annexure-C and for setting aside the proceedings in Execution Petition No.59/2010 vide Annexure-E.
2. Respondents-1 to 3 had filed suit in O.S.No.41/1995 for permanent injunction which came to be dismissed by trial Court. Subsequently, suit in O.S.No.38/2001 for specific performance was filed by these respondents contending that there was an agreement of sale dated 23.03.1983 in their favour; defendants-3, 4 & 6 and :6: mother of defendant No.5 and father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 had agreed to sell this property bearing Sy.No.570/2 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Bhatkal for a sum of Rs.65,000/- and said amount was paid on the date of execution of sale agreement. Said suit namely, O.S.No.38/2001 came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 11.04.2007. Aggrieved by the said decree, petitioners have filed RFA No.1802/2007 which came to be withdrawn on 21.02.2008 with liberty to approach the jurisdictional appellate Court. Subsequently, R.A.No.59/2008 has been filed and same is said to be pending. Application for stay of execution proceedings came to be filed on 30.06.2009 - Annexure-C seeking stay of execution of operation of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38/2001. Said application is not yet disposed of by the appellate Court. In the meanwhile, decree holders namely, respondents who had filed Execution Petition No.59/2010, got a Court Commissioner appointed to execute the sale deed. He has submitted a report stating that Commission warrant is duly executed and sale deed has been duly registered. Accepting :7: the said report, execution proceedings have been closed. In other words, application filed by petitioners in R.A.No.59/2008 i.e. I.A.1/2008 for stay of execution proceedings has become infructuous. Thus, nothing survives for consideration in this petition.
3. At this juncture, Sri Suresh Bhat, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners makes a fervent appeal to this Court to issue a direction to trial Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within time frame.
In view of the fact that notice had not been issued on this writ petition to respondents, directions as sought for cannot be issued and I am of the considered view that it would suffice if a direction is issued to District Judge, Karwar before whom R.A.No.59/2008 is pending for consideration to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp