(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K.,ADVOCATE)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. On inquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the petitioner is not possession of the property and it is in fact the respondent who is in possession of the property growing maize crops. If that be so, it was but required for…
Judgment
(BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: NAGESH S/O LAXMANAPPA AGE 44 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O DASARAHATTI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-577 228, (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR N.K.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLALKERE IN E.X.18/2013 DATED 07.02.2023 AND ALLOW EXECUTION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:26084 CRP No. 333 of 2023 ORDER
The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: ” Set aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Holalkere in E.X.18/2013 dated 07.02.2023 and allow execution petition in the interest of justice and equity.”
The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a O.S.No.88/2009, which came to be decreed by an order dated 27.02.2013, restraining the defendant therein from interfering or causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner by the plaintiff. Alleging interference and obstruction, the petitioner - decree holder had filed Execution Petition No.18/2013 which came to be dismissed on 07.02.2023 on the ground that the judgment debtor had made a categorical statement that he was not interfering with the possession of the decree holder. It is challenging the said order that the petitioner is before this Court. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26084 CRP No. 333 of 2023
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that mere submission on part of the judgment debtor that he is not interfering with the possession, would not suffice for dismissal of the execution petition inasmuch as the judgment debtor has categorically stated that the decree holder is not in possession of the property and that the property subject matter of the suit is not owned by the decree holder. As such, necessary inquiry ought to have been held by the execution court in regard to the said aspects and not to dismiss the execution proceedings.
Operative part
On inquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the petitioner is not possession of the property and it is in fact the respondent who is in possession of the property growing maize crops. If that be so, it was but required for the Execution Court to have considered these aspects and given a finding as regards the possession of the property and obstruction, if any, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26084 CRP No. 333 of 2023 instead of just dismissing the execution petition on the ground that the judgment debtor has indicated that he is not interfering with the possession. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Execution Court is not sustainable and as such, I pass the following: ORDER i) ii) The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Holalkere in Execution No.18/2013 is set aside. iii) The matter is remitted to the Execution Court for fresh consideration in terms of the above observations. Sd/- JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115.
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.