(BY SRI. BASAVANNA K. M., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. L. RAJA, ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 47
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Cause title
SMT BHAVANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SRI NAGENDRA MURTHY, R/AT MIG-29, NEAR ORCHID SCHOOL, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSURU – 570 022 H. S. JAYASHANKARA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O H. S. JAYASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, CHIKKAYYANACHATRA HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 004 SRI. VISHWA S/O H. S. JAYASHANKARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE, CHIKKAYYANACHATRA HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 004 (BY SRI. BASAVANNA K. M., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS
AND: SMT GEETHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SRI MANJU, R/AT NO.322, 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA, MYSURU – 570 014 (BY SRI. L. RAJA, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:969 WP No. 176 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE EX. NO.29/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-K) PASSED IN EX. NO.29/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records in the Ex.No.29/2020 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru and set aside the order dated 12.12.2025 (Annexure-K) passed in Ex.No.29/2020 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru; (d) Direct the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, to conduct the trial under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in ex. No.29/2020 pending on the file of the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, in terms of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed IA No.4 filed by the 1st petitioner; and (c) Grant such other and further reliefs as are just including the costs of this proceedings.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:969 WP No. 176 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the instant execution proceedings instituted by the respondent- decree holder, the petitioners-judgment debtors disputed the rate/quantum of interest payable by them to the respondent and accordingly, sought for enquiry to be conducted in this regard, which was declined by the Executing Court by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition. In this context, the Executing Court committed an error in considering and appreciating that having regard to the rival contentions and the dispute between the parties, which gives rise to an ambiguity as regards the rate/quantum of interest, the said question/issue would require an enquiry to be conducted by the Executing Court, in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity to both sides. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court declining/refusing to conduct enquiry deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
4. In the result, I pass the following: (i) The petition is allowed.
ORDER -
4 - NC: 2026:KHC:969 WP No. 176 of 2026 HC-KAR (ii) The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Ex.No.29/2020 by the Executing Court is hereby set aside. (iii) The Executing Court is directed to conduct to reconsider the matter afresh, in relation to the rate/quantum of interest payable by the petitioners to the respondents and conduct necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 47; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.