Writ Petition No. 8866 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8866 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. PALAIAH, S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SURE PAPAIAH, S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, 3. SANNA PAPAIAH S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH, AGED 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/O NERALAHALLY VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK - 577 535. …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANNAMMA, W/O AJJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR 2. KAMALAMMA APN, D/O LATE AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH, W/O VEERESH, AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. MANJAMMA APN D/O AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH, AGE 36 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. ESHWARI, D/O LATE AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH, W/O PRAKASH, AGED 33 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL ARE R/O NERALAHALLY VILLAGE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535. (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITINERARY CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MOLAKALMURU IN EX. NO. 13/2021 DATED 18.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WP AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Shri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Siddappa B.M., learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The Petitioners - judgment debtors are at the doors of this Court in their third attempt to stall execution of the decree. The plaintiffs - respondents, the decree holders, institutes a suit in O.S.No.35/2016 for declaration and possession. The suit comes to be decreed on 19.12.2020. The petitioners herein files an appeal before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.6/2021, calling in question the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35/2016, which comes to be dismissed on 08.04.2022. By then, the respondents had filed an execution petition in Ex.No.13/2021 seeking to execute the decree in O.S.No.35/2016. After the judgment in R.A.No.6/2021, the petitioner files a regular second appeal before this Court in RSA Nos.925/2022 and 928/2022, which comes to be dismissed on 30.01.2023. 3. The order passed by this Court in RSA, aforesaid was called in question before the Apex Court only to be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR dismissed. Therefore, before all the four fora, the petitioner has lost his case. The Executing Court now passes an order reissuing the delivery warrant as sought by the decree holders. The petitioner was before this Court again in WP.No.15539/2023 calling in question the order, which directed police protection to be granted for the purpose of preparation of 11E sketch. Due to efflux of time, the petition had rendered infructuous and the coordinate bench closes the petition by the following order: "2.The petitioners are before this Court challenging the order dated 19.06.2023 passed on I.A.No.6 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') in Ex.No.13/2021 allowing I.A.No.6 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, directing the PSI, Molakalmuru to give police protection to Survey Department in order to prepare 11E Sketch. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that 11E Sketch is already prepared and submitted to the Court. Further, he submits that police protection provided to Survey Department has spent itself. Therefore, writ petition would no more survive for consideration. 4. Since 11E Sketch is already prepared and police protection provided to Survey Department to prepare 11E Sketch has spent itself, order under in 19.06.2023 challenge Ex.No.13/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru, would no more survive for consideration. I.A.No.6 dated on
Decision
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR The judgment debtors are again before this Court on a feign attempt to contend that the impugned order now passed is contrary to law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to contend that the 11E sketch is not prepared in the manner that is depicted under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, without hearing or notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the order that is passed is contrary to law. 5. The order impugned reads as follows: "Sri.ABU., Advocate brought notice of the Court towards order of th eHon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.15539/2023 (GM-CPC) dated 31-10-2023. It transpires from the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that, the above stated WP prepared by the JDRs Challenging the order on IA no.6 granting police protection to the Survey Department to prepare 11-E sketch is came to be dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that 11-E Sketch already prepared thus, writ petition is not maintainable. Now, Sri.A.B.U., Advocate pryas to issue delivery warrant against JDRs. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing for the JDR's submitted that, no delivery warrant should be issued as decree passed by this Court is under challenge. Heard both sides. The learned advocate for the JDR's as not produced any materials before the Court to show that, the Judgment and decree passed by this Court is under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21416 WP No. 8866 of 2024 HC-KAR is without any basis. challenge and same is stayed. Therefore, the objection raised by the JDR's is not tenable. Under such circumstances, prayer of JDR's not to issue delivery warrant sheet dated:10.06.2022 indicates that, my learned Predecessor in office already issued a delivery warrant against JDR's. Hence, there is no impediment to re-issue delivery warrant as sought by the DHR. Otherwise, the decree holder cannot enjoy fruits of decree. Office to re-issue delivery warrant against JDRs. If PF is furnished. Call on regular date i.e., 27-03-2024." Order In the light of the aforesaid, plethora of cases filed and failed by the petitioners, attempting to stall the fruits of the decree, somehow or the other, has made his fifth attempt, in the subject petition to stall, by urging contentions that is on the face of it untenable, in law. 6. Finding no perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court impugned in the subject petition, for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Interim order of any kind subsisting stands dissolved. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY