IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN;};aL{)j'<fi" *
DATES THIS THE 218T DAY 0F_;FiEEBRU£LRYv"'2<i3t)°9V""'
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR.J{is':'[<:E iv-,A§mab;1:s;§gA
WRIT PETFFION No.1456?,i2_§_}U5. (GM-Cm)
BETWEEN:
Channa Kcshava Rctidy
Sfo. Basappa Ready' _ 1 V. 1 ' ~
Aged about 5? /o:;._Jaga-iVur"V!'oWi1=
Davanagere A_ ' ' , v
... Pefitioncr
(By Sni B.1y:,yzan3fiaé»._r;a, Al;1v§§£§zIa'ec}. VVV\'
I. Chand:ta;{"Rg:6dy_.
S] o. Rangappa '
Aged abR;'.}1t"53 ycei_:s;,V'.4';gzic111t111'ist
F: 1" <3. _ Nehru Rom, Jagalur Town
Elavafigpre
.. .;~Man£ia1T'an¢hayath
Liagaliif;-«
'~.I;}aV§-Iflgffrfffl District.
_ Shivaiingappa
" Shcttappa
u _ Aged about 55 years
R/o. Nehru Road, Jaga1urTown
Davangcre District. Respondents
;{By M] s. M.Rambhat 85 Smepada Associates, Advocates for
‘ R1; R2 fir, R3 ~ Served)
This petition is filed under Articles 226 as _;?2[?< ojf.
Constitution of India, praying to quash the ordczi B5,: 1 V'
the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Jagalur on. 'm "
Ex.N.8/2002 dated 05.02.2005 vide _Am1c4xt1r.e-D -étc.”
This petition comm’ g on for finial ma’ Tm’ g’JT~:hi:r,.:da§},A:’%th.é
Court made the follawing: _
oRDE§a
The dCCI’t’:€-hO1d6I’ aggrieved
by the order dat¢dv__0S.{3’2;2(}Vf{5V, “IA No.16 in
Ex.No.8/
2. :ie{§£éé¥i1oldcr had filqd
O.S.No.3′;*] (respondents
herein). ‘I’heVVV’s33itvvt&%.;«:1$.’ nciicf of declaration of title,
..~ possscssion. The suit was decreed
‘:’I;:1’ zjéispcctv .9i’~f§)l1§§-‘tiring pxopcrty: –
“SCHEDULE
Khata No.1039/1068, assessment
Vvéitc No.2, measuring East-West 28′ and North-
Bi)’, situated in Jagalur Town and is bounded by»
VT 1 4′ Municipal space and beyond that Davangcre-
chanakcze mad. T
M
West : Water pipe line
North : Road and _
South : Conservancy.” I
3. The decree was soughfi “£9. be
No.8/2002. The judgment-dcbfiér-V’.V:’mgafdc” for
appointment of that he is the
owner of adjoining No. 13, floor
No.491/491-A/3__3’1 ,f;,@g§v;–x;x-ig;g”: 45′, situate at
Challakerc The executing
Court byivfiiifiéf the appfication.
Again, »madc vidc I.A.No.XVI. The
.trial _t’?z1cA’4=:1;V)A1′;i.}.Vicatiox1 and appointed ADLR,
” id¢1§iiif32″””;ti§e suit schedule property of the
pci:it:iVd’1m;’ iiiccatc the boundaries of suit schedule
* V pm15m.’i;.v?a1:vxd a report along with a sketch.
AA 4. }§s._a§lrcady stated, emit was decreed in rcspcct of the
pmpcrty=-
W _DW%¢L,K
”
A site hearing Khata No.1£)39}’106i3, .;a§§ggss§:;;e§:t
r~zo.1397, site No.2, mcasurm’ g Easf~VVe-s§1:A.’28’ ‘v;§.1.1é1».
South 30′, situated in Jagalur
East : 4′ spaeeV.anel: hej%o1;d tI1et’i’)av£.:cngeIe-
Challakere vre~_aV:rl." V * West : Wamr pipe ' North : Road A South :
5. :’e’Ei}e13e..:iif ag anfaiscm’ pancy relating to
descripti<5n_ ..eIv;ecuti0n petition, the learned
Judge of t11eV'e'2:.ecutin'g proceed to execute decree
as mentioned in the dmree.
‘-E._I1’ execution. if it is found that the property
desiirribed is not in ejdstenee and the decree
ealmoebe the leaxzaed Judge of the executing Couxt
‘A a finding that the decree is not executable.
Tifhereéfter, decree-holder can take further course of action
:3:-3″‘i£; available £0 him by Law. Therefoze, there was no need
n for the executing Court to” appoint a Commissioner to
RF g/£/-L_..\__ .1591. L ‘~- .»
idcnfiijr the suit schedule property, more pa.ri:icu1_.giriy'”
simflar’ Itiicf was already ztjectcd vidc oIt1crs.__(§fi». b
dated 04.06.2004.
6. In View ofthc above, 1 pass The pctititm is is set aside. However, it executed oniy in respect 01+" in the light of observations ' iriadcx with law. Sd/- Judge SNN