Karnataka High Court
Shri. Vinayak S/O Balachandra Potadar vs Shri Bharama Alias Bharamu S/O Basappa ... on 9 September, 2022
-1-
WP No. 101198 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 101198 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI VINAYAK S/O BALACHANDRA POTADAR
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHIRADI, TQ. RAIBAG
DIST. BELAGAVI-591217
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADV.)
AND:
SHRI BHARAMA ALIAS BHARAMU
S/O BASAPPA BANAGE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCL: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BHIRADI, TQ. RAIBAG
DIST. BELAGAVI-591217
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI J.S.SHETTY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/03/2020
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG
AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
-2-
WP No. 101198 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.108/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.108/2019 for the relief of specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed with judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020. After disposal of the said suit, the respondent filed an application seeking order of temporary injunction against the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the petitioner by filing objections. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order passed the Trial Court is without -3- WP No. 101198 of 2022 jurisdiction. He submits that, the suit is decreed by the Trial Court. After disposal of the said suit, the Trial Court has no right to pass any orders. Hence he submits that the order passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction and hence he prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that even after disposal of the suit, the respondent can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that, the respondent has filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2020. Learned counsel for the parties, submits that, neither of the parties have challenged the judgment and -4- WP No. 101198 of 2022 decree passed in the aforesaid suit. Judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit has attained finality. After disposal of the said suit, the respondent filed an application seeking order of temporary injunction against the petitioner. The Trial Court allowed the said application. Once the decree passed by the Court has reached finality, the judge who has passed the decree was functus officio to alter or direct any parties to implement the decree passed by the Court. It is always open for the parties to protect his right as per the decree in accordance with law. If somebody violates the decree, it is for the respondent to implement the decree by initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner who has violated the decree.
8. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of M.C.Bachappa and another Vs. Nagarathnamma and others reported in 2018 2 KCCR 1017, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court held that, the Court become functus officio, such order cannot be passed. Impugned order is set aside. Liberty is given to -5- WP No. 101198 of 2022 the decree holder to approach the competent Court to protect his right if any, in accordance with law.
9. Considering the law laid down by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, this Court is of the opinion that, the application filed by the respondent is not maintainable. The Trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary, erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 19.03.2020 passed on application in O.S.No.108/2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag is set aside.
Consequently the application filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE EM