High Court Karnataka High Court

G Mylappa vs Hanumanthappa on 20 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
G Mylappa vs Hanumanthappa on 20 October, 2008
Author: Ravi Malimath
_ 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY 01:-' OCTOBER, 2003 
BEFORE jj
THE I-iON'BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIhi{;TI'fi: V:.  
CIVIL REVISION PETYFION      
BETWEEN :     % x x 

Gmyiappa, S/o Late Gundala Gangappa,  '

Age: 56 years, R/o Doddaullarthy 

Thalak Hobii, Challakcre Taiuk. A  -    
    '.  FETFPIONER

    %%(BYk %sr<}.k33,kL.:{U§aA12;Agm/ocA'rE.)
AND: A 2 %   

1.     ' 
S / 0 Late .,GundaI_u Gr'  ppa,
Age:  "  .

S/0'   fizanttxatépa,

 V Age': .34~years;~%_ 

%  Nixlgazirna;  "' 4'
' " "  *0. Hanumantflappa,
'  gage; 3i~..yea;:s;

     Aarc ékgicultuiists,
T  R/0- Doddaullarthy Village,

'V V    Hobli, Challakere Taluk.

. . . . RESPONDENTS

M4,»,

-2-

This CRP is filed under Section 1 15 of CPC aginst the
order dated 28.03.2008 passed in Ex..No. 10/2007 on the tile of
the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Molakalmuru, dismissing the
petition filed under Order 21 Rule 1 1 of CPC and etc.

This CRP coming on for admission this

made the folIowing:– ._

Feeling awieved by the order by

the learned. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.)”‘-of iii

Ex.No.10/2007, this epet:tiog;iiihia.§«f.beene:’ ..i[i.:’;1e;i. M

2. Heard the petitioner.

3. It A’ oi’ t1t§’e.._pe.ti-tioner that he is the decree
holder. His was decreed on 5.6.2006.
Thereafierg as the debtors have violsited the said

the Hfiixecution Petition. The triai Court, by

virme M1… order, dismissed the petition filed by the

hoider. fieflce this petition.

= Court, while perusing the Execution Petition,

that no cause of action has been made out by the

‘ to entertain the petition. Except filing the judgment

Q3″…

.. 3 ..

and decree, there is not even a mention by the decree holder as

to when the order has been violated. More-over, ‘dime

been let in and no documents are marked in

his case.

5. I do not find any irxfmnity

calls for ix1te1’I’erence. The learned very

fairly admitted that even in this petition, to

when the judwent debtors by

the trial Court.

For the aforesaid being devoid of

merits, is accordingly dismissed. ” _

5:1!-,
“judge