High Court Karnataka High Court

Patel Marigowda S/O Annegowda vs Puttegowda on 4 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Patel Marigowda S/O Annegowda vs Puttegowda on 4 August, 2008
Author: N.Ananda


IN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KAI%NA’I’;}I{A AT. ‘aA:~.¥'(}A1;fi$R.3 ”

DATED THIS THE 04%! DAYQFAUGU%s*1i20t33A%’k%%

BEFCRE
THE 1~1oN*BLE MR. JiiST,I:(3,F;_vN.I–‘£1’3;’£V:!\§ }Z”)A Vi:
CIVIL REVISION reo§f;22%f7 OF 2005

BETWEEN: ‘ é
PATEL MARIGQWS;-m’ .s._fo. i.cx:§;~:WA;%%[,
smcg DEcg:A’s¥s :;$

S /o. LATE MAREGOW§?3A,
MAJ<::R;__ 1.

occ: RE*§fD..E*SI .

mm’. PoL;.cE%c<31;.9N'*{,' ,_ '
BEERANAHALLIKERE,
HAss_A:-z._ '

1(a) Sn.s..zs¢zJ,NAc;Ar%*rqA..G«3§§iI§A,"

” * 1,1(b)’ sfM:.1.z:)0R$swm}i*{;”‘ ‘V

sj.:::. 1,333’ .!;viAR1’~<3OW DA,

%_A<:,-at: 52'-maizs,

'ra._m*1j~.%.PADUvAN;aHALLI,
CH#§N'NAAYAP:'$'i'NA TALU K,
HAS'€SAN,.__DiE$'F;'

' '-ago). S.M.FRAKASH
.S,h3}LA'T'E MAEHGOWDA,
*Ac»;$Dj.4s YEARS,
. R;A1"'sINc.aPURA,
I~«£.§35~"<'.i9. comm,

' 'V -ALUR TALUK.

HASSAN EHSTRICT. .. PETITIONERS

{By Sri. MRAGHAENDRACHAR. ADVOCATE)
AND;

PUTFEGOWDA.

S/0.JAVAREG<3WDA,

On estabiishment of the Court

/ 1990 was transferred and it was re—

.V%,”%§Jr.A§%n.)’*’ét A1111: 011 20.3.1999, EP No.87/1999 was
V for nompmsecution. Thereafter, petitioner
T fixed Ex.No.3/2004. The Trial Court dismissed the

U Execution Petition as not maintaizlable. Therefore,

E.)

I-IOSAVALLI VILLAGE,
PALYA HOBLE,

ALURTALUK,
PIASSAN DISTRICT. .._RESPONDEN’£”_’y ”

(By Sri. N.S.SANGOLLI, ADVOCATE}

THIS CERF IS man {}/S*. _115 039′ ‘CFC i’-;G£;1.b;ST THE
ORDER DATED 6.6.2005 PASSEDJN Ex.1s:_0;3/2-004, cm ‘THE ‘
FILE cap’ THE CIVIL JUI)GE”{JR’.DN.) ‘~35 ;:M:«*c:,_ ALUR,
DISMISSING THE ExEcUT1oN__.PET11*§QN F’IL.ED_;BY THE
PE’I’ITiOi\IER HEREIN u;c*…_21 01? FOR RECOVERY OF A
SUM OF’ Rs.51,017/–. ” I

This civil on for final
hearing, this _da§,{, *_~f_he iCo§:1j’1:=, wads .1;1f’1effoI}owing:

‘File a money decree in
G.S.No.?,{_I9’i’8 bf Munsifi’ at Sakaleshpur.

He on the filf: of Civil Judge

RP No.8′?/ 1999 on the file of cm: Judge

petitioner is before this Court. N’ (;£\..3u.4~

. iaf iiéntenfiofl reliance is placed an
in AIR 1933 Madras 413, AIR 1974

2 L mam Qsegxfid ILR 1999 Kar.2154.

It is net in dispute that EP No.8?’/ 1999 was
dfimissed for default an 20.8.1999. The present

‘ “Execution petition was filed in the year 2004 beyond a

2. The execution for money ” ”
EP.No.36/1990. Though the ¢;ate ¢;*
avaiiable, it can safely wk p;*es{m;%ed¢ Vtrsgf ‘ %
petition should have before

31. 12.2002.

.3. The’ petitioner has
contended dismissed EP
No.87 ” reasons. Therefore, Ex.

No.3] as continuaticn of the

carlitfa’ » gxeéixfiqfi’ i.e., EP.No.87/1999. In

period of 12 years fiom the date of ciecree.
N7 2

, subnfission of}
counsel for the petitimer that decme ”

11. In these any errtr
committed by vy, petition is
dismissed. V ‘ ‘