Shri Namdev S/O Laxman Kundale vs The Asst Commissioner on 11 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2qI_C>  A.

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGAN_I.\ZAT_H;'§1\I"A--S.::' _
CIVIL REVISION I3E'1'ITIO:5I'I&IO;*10:;S..g2Qo9V'"V  V  *

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI NAMDEV, S/O LAXMAN KU.NI3-ALE, '
AGE 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE *
R/O ARLIHATTI, "PAL. ATHANI,  '-
DIST . BELGAUM. * ~ 

2. SHRI. DATTU. S/O BALUOKAUIIDAIE', }
SINCE DECEASED. BY HIS L.RS. . _ '

2(A) SHRI. SUNDABAI, viz/o§DIo;.=I"ruVI<U';~IDALE; A
AGE 50 YEAFgS", _oc_c.-- HQ_USEIjI_OLD".VO'RK,
R/O A.-RAILIHATTIIV 'I'Q«I_.__--.jfIT'H_AI€I, DIST, BELGAUM.

2(3) SHEI. .1\giAHAD'E3J;.S D.A'I"rU'*KUN'DALE,
AGE 32 'I'E3ARS,'«.O(3C',: A.r;EIcU--I.TURE,
R/O -=A1<ALIHAfIfIjI;ITQ';Iw A_TiIAI~EI', DIST. BELGAUM.

2© S1-OIIR. OSHIVAIII,  I5EfI*9I'U KUNDALE,
AGE 30_vYEARS-,_ occ; 'AGRICULTURE,
, -- E/0 ARALIHATTI, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM.

'V V'  __ 2(D-)i__.l:' SMTI VVSHANTABAI'; 'W/0 BAPU JADHAV,

_ AGE 2_8"*:EARS, occ: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
"  TR,/_O'AVRALIHATTI, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM.

"2{E';-_r SIvI??;_'»SAL§'I'IRI, W/O BHIMRAO PAWAR,

AGE 2Cr_YEARS, OCC: HOSUEHOLD WORK,
R350 AJEALIHATTI, TAL. ATHANI. DIST. BELGAUM.

 2&4') AASVMII. S1-IUSHILA SATRUGAN KADAM,

,_ AGE 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
 R/O ARALIHATTI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM.

3 SEER}. JANU, S/O BALU KUNDALE,

AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ARALIHATTI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM.



4. SHRI TUKARAM, S/O BALU KUNDALE,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.,

4A} SMT. VIT1-EABAI, W/O TUKARAM KUNDALE,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O ARALIHATTI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELGAUM. ,

(BY SRI. S.N.HATTI, ADV.)

AND:
E. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHIKODIZA

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENG-I.NEER,i'  V'
MINOR IRRIGATION, ATHANI.  A

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,   
MINOR IRREGATION, DI-{AK BUNGALOW 
SHAHAFUR,BELGAUM, '   

 ....:RESFONDENTs

(BY SRI. VINAYAK S,.:<ULI<AR.N.I,,'I~I~CGR FOR"R'ESFO.N DENTS)

THIS FEjr1~:.'.ON IS FILED'~UjN.DE'R SECTION 115 OF CFC AGAINST
THE ORDERDATED::,24/1.,/2a_o9 FASSED IN EXECUTION PETITON
No.90/2003 'ON.j.THE";FI;.E'»QF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN} ATHANI,
REJECTING._T~HE AIaI*LICA.TI'ON FILED UNDER SECTION :51 OF CPC IN

Ex.R.NO."9Q/200'3.. v "

THISEIFFEAL" CO'IrIINr3fON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

  ..... .. v ORDER

 ~Civi:I";fevisiOn petition is fiied against the Order

pas_§éd by 53.1-:15 Executing Court in E.P.NO.9O/2003 on

'Q24/01",'vEC09 dismissing the appiication flied by RV.

"«iii'SairIib_argi Counsei for the petitioners herein requesting the

eigzecuting Court to set aside the Order passed by the said

if'

,,r'

_._.FETIfIf'IONEfR-s_i 5 .;. '



Court on 23/09/2008 dismissing the execution petition as

fully satisfied.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners  _

though the counsel who was on record had_.reti4riedfrom the  

case and the petitioners were in the process» 

_ €.n~u.m£ 3  _  "W, ,_  
new counsel, Whose vakalathr had been '*terrn1.r1*ated, filed a _ 

memo stating that the  fullylxsatis*fiedl2§and the
executing Court accept':edl_ theillsaivdigmyeirno andlipassed the
impugned order dated:_ therefore the
submission mad:e;l_'i--S thatg  itself has been

rejected, there 'wast. noocé.as'i'on:,fo1%_ the previous counsel to

file a memo on 'oehaif,ofspthrelpetitioners and therefore, the
Court beloved coul_d2'notf_.have dismissed the application

subsequently niiledv by the petitioners through counsel

  setting aside the order passed on

i2si/09/2608. 

  hiiearned counsel also submitted that in similar

rrgmattersvvlllthis Court had allowed the revision petition and

.  'directed the executing Court to hear the matter afresh and

Ex

, I'



placed a copy for perusal of the order passed in CR?

No.1027/2009 by this Court on 22/07/2009.

4. Having thus heard learned 

petitioners and upon hearing learned  .forl_i_j_th'-.3 it

respondent and also on perusal 

court in the aforementioned l am of thed..vAie:vV”‘tha’t the ” it

executing Court could not have___pass’ed the imvpugried order
on the memo filed bynthe i–coui3_se’l–ipiVwpho–se vakalath was
rejected. Under.these.-circums*tan_ces,_ the following

order:

tiivil is allowed. The impugned order
of the CA’;oui”t% below:.ijp’rejecting’. the application filed seeking

_ _ – -_ _ 9»!-mriolg
S€lZlL1I?.g.,8.S1Cl€ the order passed on 23/09/2008 1S allowed and

‘i V’ «,.the’vi;3:i£:eC’utir’;g Courtwiisldirected to hear the matter afresh in

i__accordar1ce ‘law.

Sd/5
IUDGE

” « _ “kmv