Smt. Hanamavva W/O Nagappa Uppar vs Smt. Kasturavva W/O Kenchappa Arabal on 13 March, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Hanamavva W/O Nagappa Uppar vs Smt. Kasturavva W/O Kenchappa Arabal on 13 March, 2018

Bench: Ravi Malimath

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

            ON THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

      WRIT PETITION NO.100631 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

SMT.HANAMAVVA,
W/O NAGAPPA UPPAR,
AGE: 72 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: UGARAGOOL,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1     SMT.KASTURAVVA
      W/O KENCHAPPA ARABAL
      AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: UGARAGOOL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELAGAVI.

2     SMT.YALLAVVA W/O YALLAPPA UPPAR
      AGE: 40 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: UGARAGOOL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
      DIST: BELAGAVI.

3     SRI.SHIVANAND YALLAPPA UPPAR
      AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                             2




    R/O: UGARAGOOL,
    TQ: SAUNDATTI,
    DIST: BELAGAVI.                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT 2 AND 3;
RESPONDENT 1 SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:16.01.2018
PASSED ON I.A.NO.I FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 35 OF
CPC., IN E.P.NO.21 OF 2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

                         *****

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                         ORDER

The decree-holder, in the execution proceedings, filed I.A. No.1 under Order XXI Rule 35 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking delivery of possession of the property mentioned therein. The petitioner did not file any objection. Hence, the Executing Court allowed the application. Delivery warrant was issued. The same is challenged herein.

2. Petitioner's counsel submits that what is being executed is far more than what the delivery warrant states.

3. However, on hearing learned counsel, I do not find any merit in the petition. Firstly, for the fact that no objection was filed to I.A. No.1. Therefore, it is inappropriate for this Court to hear a new argument which was not even placed for consideration before the Trial Court. Secondly, the delivery warrant can only be to the extent of the decree. There cannot be a delivery warrant of the property outside the decree. Hence, I find no ground to interfere. Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Kms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court