A 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER," BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. V>i§VNUGO.PI3ii;,4.°C_G,O'i»iiiIDA '~ 1' WRIT PETITION NO.226:6_4/2'01?) BETWEEN: V' 'A V 2 G.K.RajeSh S/O.Ka|egowda @ BO~:ia..gegow"da Aged about 32 years _ R/at Gowdaiahana Doddi.I_Viilagie¥ C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taiukg _, Mandya DiSt3_rict;l'f _ ' " é ' _ " __ PETITIONER (By Sm't,P'.C Sunitha, _/3idy"?'or M/s.M.SI'\:app,a Assojziateis, Advs.) ' ;M.C.R.aja.nn:a"I S/o.3o.j'ana Cho~wdegowda "Age-d about 31 years R/o.Mad~a_ra~'haiii Viiiage C.A.Ke:.-e i-iobii Maddunffaiuk Mandya District. RESPONDENT
‘(By Sri B.S.Mahendra, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articies 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders
passed by the learned Pr£.Civi| Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC at
Maddur, in Ex.l\io.23/2005 dated 23.01.2010 ordei’i–ng for
arrest of the petitioner by issuing arrest warrant-._under
Annexure–G and hold that petitioner has no meansixi pay
the decretal amount and dismiss the execution p’eti_t:i–on.f.
This petition coming on for preliminary.’hea’ri:ng_in_:iB’~ ,
group, this day the Court made the’ fo!lowing.: V
o R 1:)
Respondent instit_uted’–v..a””~suit againstj”_:th’eipetitioner’
for recovery of money,based'”onfadp-ronote’.””‘The suit was
decreed. Seeking recovery’:”of,:ii’-thevlldecree amount,
execution petiti:on_ has been Vwhjicyh, objections were
filed fby_ theel’.pe,titii,one:rfjudgment debtor, wherein it was
contended that, means to satisfy the decree.
Enquiry has_”taken “place. Considering the rival
.cointeh’tions._,_2 the below has held that, the plea of no
in-eal’rrslfiVs_2ridtestablished and hence, has ordered issue of
ar*-r.est,.__vwa,ri’ant to the judgment debtor, if process fee is
paid.’ Said order has been questioned in this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and
‘perused the writ petition papers.
/”
(fa
3. The impugned order is not a considereV_d,_:o~rder.
The Court below has not appreciated the
both the parties and also the evidence vs:i1’ic’h.:wa’s::b’roug”h’t .
on its record. The impugnedigorcl-er..ronlyl-refersft_o”ii::ti1e
contentions and the conclusion is Cw-i.thcut refere.nVce..’to the”
evidence which has been p!ac_ied_:onV_vrecord._:V;l’hef% impugned
order is not a reasonedlliiorder. gg ” ‘ .
In the_..res:u’l-t, wirit _peftitioVn”~s’t_andsVj’allowed. Impugned
order-stands.c;u’a;shed«.V’a’n’d ‘th’eVvVe$:<ecution Court is directed
to reconsider tr:eV"nfiat.ten2=..a'n_d 'pass order in accordance with
law. Sinlcepbothl \t_he._p'arties have placed their evidence, the
Court is di'rer:t.ed to hear the arguments of the learned
' ,.cou.nselV'~a:nd""pass order keeping in view the observations
"made supra
" .Both the parties are directed to appear before the
'e.xE:§'Cution Court on 27.9.2010 and receive further orders.
__Since the decree has been passed on 11.1.2005 and the
execution petition is of the year 2005, the execution Court
is directed to consider the matter and dispose of the same
by
/J
as early as practicabie and at any event, witta;'_£:'h"2..'_ifs*ajt;t::;:{2_S
from the next date of hearing i.e., 27.9.2018.–'.:':~.,
Ksj/–