High Court Karnataka High Court

Raju S/O Shivaram Shetty vs Sri Chaman Khan on 22 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Shivaram Shetty vs Sri Chaman Khan on 22 September, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI).  %   % f%  %  _

DATED THIS THE 22" DAY Q§%jsEPT£Mm;kR2t§ox  [ %  

BEFORE'-z.'  2 T  
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUST'i€3,}3~VANAN§:D__ BYRA£iE;m*,*f
WRIT PETITION N0.3.035%"8;'20o3 (GM:cPc;:'i

BETWEEN:

Raju,    , 
S50 ShiVa{am"*S%"'ef£§{, _ _,  '
Aged «$8 yearsg» _  '

Occ: B£:.sin¢ss,.     
R50 1 crogs, 'Gand§1ifi2:Tgaf;"  " v 

Eharwad.  V . PETITIGNER

 <  _(B§,%:L_SE}§3r§,; Sh;ae!¥é.fsha.A'Nedopant, Advacafe)

1] X  chggnkafi Khan,
SE0 Atlabéx Pathan,
Agédé-2 years,

 " 'TC)§c: Business,
'  * .R;f3.} Rasulpnri Qni,
 Dharwad.

'4 " '   Aciamkhan

S50 Allabax Pathan,

Aged 35 years,

Occ: Business,

R/0 Rasalpuri Ong Dharwad, .g.RE1SPONDEN'I'

(By Shré.K,L.Pati}, Adv, for R-2)
/5



This Writ Petition is filed E.II'l€i6I' Articles 226 -ef

the Cezzstitutioe of India, pmying to set asiée the_ei'cieif'_.dé1ted
1892008 passed in Exeeutien Case Ne.99,?2OG8  
Court of III Additional Civii Judge (Senior Di§'.iStQ:1't)?iDiV1at"waCi'  

as per Arxnexere-J. 

This petition eeming on for Preiiimineifif Heeii1'£g  ._

the Court made the following:  

i9RflERifi iiV .

Heard the Ceunsel Affl1'i.1_Ji}€   it M 

2. The tii.e:iud4gineiit¥d'ebter having suffered

a judgtiieiit   si:it_iiifiied by the respondents fer

rec0ver}?”ef”;}0ssee§ii§e i§2§}§”3fi’f33.t’S {if rent. The suit having

beengvdeeieeciiiibgii ejiidgziieeiiti and decree dated 18.2.2008, which

‘”ae.e(i:’di1ig’ toiithe petitioner is an uizexeeutabie decree, as there is

it”inad_eeuate_~V«;ie:§e1’i’f§:ti0n of the suit property to identify the same

i . by iiiieteei eixéi bounds, it is the ease ef the petitififler that the

iig.,’I’1’iial4_.ACc§izrt had isseed a deiivery warrant en the basis of the

‘ iieeeiiptiee of property mentieeed in the process meme by the

i mtiespondeets. The piaint significantly did not contain a schedule

in which the property was cieseribed. P3re,graph-2 of the plaint

eeiy indicated that the suit prepertyg hotel building situated