The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12281/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S.V. VASUDHA W/O SRI. S. GOWRISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. SRI. S. GOWRISHANKAR S/O D. SADASHIVA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. [AMENDED BEFORE COURT DIED SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.1 IS ONLY LEGAL HEIR REP. BY PETITIONER NO.1 OF DECEASED PETITIONER NO.2] BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1337 5TH CROSS, ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE-560050.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADV., V/O/DTD:09.06.2025 P1 SHALL BE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF P2) AND: M/S. MAYURA FINANCE CORPORATION SANTHEPETE REP. BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER SRI. N. SUNDERAM AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS MYSORE-570024. (BY SRI. A. BALAKRISHNAN, ADV.,) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION 2286/2006 BY THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE OF BENGALURU (CCH-32) AS PER ANNEXURE-S AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AS NOT MAINTAINABLE, AS TIME BARRED TO ENFORCE THE DECREE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ONE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "Set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 passed in Execution Petition 2286/2006 by the Hon'ble City Civil Judge of Bengaluru (CCH-32) as per Annexure-S and consequently quash the Execution proceedings as not maintainable, as time barred to enforce the decree against the petitioners one, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to pass an order as to the maintainability of the execution by the claimant whose status is yet to be established. The affidavit accompanying the application indicates that the petitioners primarily contended that the execution petition filed in Ex.P.No.27/1999 on 09.01.1999 came to be transferred at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR the instance of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent has filed fresh execution petition in Ex.P.No.2286/2006 before the City Civil Court. The earlier execution petition was filed by one Sri.R.K.Honnegowda and the latter execution petition was filed by one Sri.N.Sunderam and he has no authorization to file the petition. It is further submitted that the execution petition filed in Bengaluru in Ex.P.No.2286/2006 is barred by limitation. To file an execution, 12 years limitation is provided and the judgment and decree is dated 05.04.1989. Hence, the Trial Court ought to have rejected the execution petition on two counts, one is that Sri.N.Sunderam has no authorization to file fresh execution petition and secondly, the execution petition filed in Bengaluru is beyond the period of limitation. It is also submitted that the filing of successive execution petition by the decree holder would not revive the period of limitation. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of KRISHNA REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. Vs. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BDA, BENGALURU1. He, therefore 1 CRP No.128/11 decided on 19.06.13 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR seeks to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order and by closing the execution petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order in this petition and submits that the initial execution petition was filed on 09.06.1989 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, and the same came to be transferred by the said Court to the Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, which was re-numbered as Ex.P.No.1379/1994. Later, the said execution petition came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent filed Ex.P.No.27/1999 before the Court of Small Causes, Mysuru, on 09.01.1999. Thereafter, the respondent sought transfer of the said proceedings to the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, on the ground that the petitioners have shifted their residence and accordingly, the said Court has transferred the proceedings to the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. However, the said case was never taken up by the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. Later, the office was directed to send the papers to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru and the said execution petition was re-numbered as Ex.P.No.2286/2006 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR thereafter, the proceedings were continued. It is submitted that the respondent did not file any successive execution petition and that the petition filed was well within the reasonable time. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both the sides. 5. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.422/1988 which was decreed. To execute the judgment and decree, the petitioners filed execution petition before the II Addl. Civil Judge, Mysuru. However, the said Court transferred the execution proceedings to the Small Causes Court, Mysuru, and the same was re-numbered as Ex.P.No.1379/1994. The material on record further indicates that the said execution petition came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 15.02.1997. The material on record further indicates that the respondent filed Ex.P.No.27/1999 before the Small Causes - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR Court, Mysuru, on 09.01.1999. The said execution petition was filed well within the period of limitation provided under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The records also indicate that the respondent has sought transfer of the said execution proceedings to Bengaluru on the ground that the petitioners have shifted their residence to Bengaluru and accordingly, the said proceedings were transferred to the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, on 31.08.2005. However, the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, could not proceed with the execution petition and later the office forwarded the said petition to the City Civil Court for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the said petition was re-numbered by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, as Ex.P.No.2286/2006 and continued the proceedings. The aforesaid facts and events clearly indicate that the initiation of proceedings by the respondent by filing the execution petition was well within the limitation provided to initiate the execution proceedings. The transfer of execution petition from one Court to another at the instance of the party or the Court itself would not take away the limitation. The proceedings were never closed but the same proceedings were continued and it resulted - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR in entertaining the execution proceedings before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.2286/2006. 6. The Trial Court, considering all these aspects has held that the validity of the execution petition was well within the time of limitation and rejected the contention urged by the petitioners. Insofar as another contention with regard to the authorization of Sri.N.Sunderam, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the resolution dated 05.05.2004 was produced and based on the same, the execution petition is entertained. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court on that point also. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the said case, the award was of the year 1985 and the execution proceedings were initiated beyond 12 years. That is not the case on hand. There is no dispute that the successive execution petition would not revive the limitation. However, in the case on hand, there is no successive execution petition. There is only one execution petition filed before the Small Causes Court at Mysuru, which was later transferred to Small Causes Court, Bengaluru, and then to the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Hence, the contention - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22343 W.P. No.12281/2019 HC-KAR urged by the petitioners has no merit. Accordingly, the same is rejected. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27