Writ Petition No. 15901 of 2019 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15901 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S.VASANTH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, R/O LIG HOUSE, NO.156, 4TH STAGE, KUKVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-577 001
Legal Reasoning
2. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O KARAKUCHI A COLONY, TARIKERE TALUK- 577 228 3. SRI NEELAKANTA S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O KARAKUCHI A COLONY, TARIKERE TALUK-577 228 4. SMT.MANJULA W/O T.S.NEELAKANTA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A KARAKUCHI A COLONY, TARIKERE TALUK-577 228 (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND: SRI T.S.ANNAIAH S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A KAVADIGARA STREET, TARIKERE TOWN-577 228 (BY SRI.RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN IA NO.2 UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 32(5) R/W SEC. 151 OF CPC IN EX.NO.11/2019 DATED: 6.02.2019 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. JMFC TARIKERE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE AND CAPRICIOUS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Ex. No.11/2019 dated 06.02.2019 by the Civil judge and JMFC, Tarikere, Chikmagalur, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application under Order 21 Rule 32(5) Read With Section 151 of CPC., the JDRs are before this Court. 2. It is the case that the respondent herein, is the decree holder had filed the suit for declaration and injunction that came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017. Thereafter, he had filed Ex.P.No.11/2019. In that, execution petition was filed within two years, he had filed an application to dispense with notice to the JDRs and the same was allowed. 3. The Trial Court had observed that in the present case, it prima-facie reveals that, the JDRs are trying to interfere with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 the possession of the DHR over the petition schedule property. Hence, if the police aid is granted in favour of the DHR, no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. Since, if the application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. Further, the Trial Court felt that it is necessary to direct the concerned police to provide police aid in favour of the DHR to protect his possession over the schedule property and accordingly, passed an order allowing the application filed under Order 21 rule 32(5) R/w Section 151 of CPC. Aggrieved thereby, the JDRs are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/JDRs submits that as far as dispensation of notice is concerned as the execution petition is filed within two years, he has not aggrieved by that order. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Order 21 Rule 32(5) R/w Section 151 of CPC and submits that unless and until there is disobedience and an enquiry is conducted by the Court, the Court cannot pass such an order and definitely, it would cause prejudice to the JDRs and the Trial Court without considering all these aspects and without even an enquiry whether there is any disobedience or - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 any interference by the JDR, had passed the said order which needs to be interfered by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DHR submits that the JDRs have not questioned the order whereby notice in the execution petition is dispensed with and without questioning that order, he cannot question this order. He submits that he is a DHR and the judgment and decree has attained finality and the JDRs have no other option, but to obey the decree passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rightly observed that no prejudice will be caused to the JDRs. by passing this order as there is a decree in favour of the DHR which has to be executed. He submits that there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that the suit for declaration and injunction is decreed and the judgment and decree had attained finality. According to the DHR., as there is an interference from the JDRs, he has given a police complaint and the police have not taken action, then he - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 approached the Civil Court and filed execution petition. In that, he had sought for dispensation of notice as well as police protection. The Trial Court had ordered dispensation of notice to the JDRs., the execution was filed within two years from the date of the decree. When it comes to the order, admittedly, there is a judgment and decree which had attained finality. Now, the DHR. wants to execute the same. How the JDRs., have aggrieved by such an order, this Court is not able to understand and appreciate. If any third parties are affected by such an order, they have their own remedy and as far as JDRs are concerned, they have no other option, but to obey the decree passed by the Trial Court. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order. Hence, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Any of the observations made by this Court or by the Trial Court is only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory application. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4166 WP No. 15901 of 2019 iii. The Trial Court shall consider the matter on the merits of it. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5