IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. v_E.NUGOPA"LA " 'V
WRIT PETITION NO.65835,{20:IEOA.fiemgcpje)
BETWEEN: % " 2
Hanumappa __
S/o. iate Somegowda,'
Aged about 63 years, ~
R/at Shanubhoganahally,
Haranahaliy Hobii, "
Periyapatna Tai'IIT.k»A;'* ._
Mysore Dist:-ict;. 'T '
Q O PETITIONER
(By M/s.'*'M...S';j:KajVé:2dra.Prasad"'&»VA'ssociates, Advs.)
AND: ¥.,_ 4' 4' ' '
1. Byraiéh," . V' E
S,"--O._ late Boraiah, "
._"'f3s9¢_L61Vvears.«... .....
' _2'." ..SrT=:,t;'~Go.v§ira_mma,
" . 'Ag e '38; -jyea rs.
W/.O';'«w..l.atef~Sa~n naia h,
3. 441'Si.d'Elaiah,
x T S/Oflate Boraiah,
'L"«Age 58 years.
Hputtaiah,
S/o. late Boraiah,
Age 41 years.
5. Swamaiah,
S/o. late Boraiah,
Age 38 years.
Respondents 1 to 5 are Majors,
R/at Doddakamaravaliy,
Haranahally Hobli,
Periyapatna Taiuk,
Mysore District.
(By Sri S.V.Giridhar & co., Advs. for Rita its”) f
.’ – .,;’.”liE’sif{oi\i’DEii\:i<s " "
This writ petition is filed unde'r"Article 2261 and 227?"oi:"o.
the Constitution of India, pray.iv,ng,_Ato quash the otdeiiidated "
20.1.2010, passed in F.D.P.N0;.8/3.997 on,_Ath'e file of the
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) &JMFC.,0–Peri'ya'p-atna, M'y.s0.re District
and allow in accordance v.:ith.,iiia_n.d'a«tory provisions of
Order XXXIV of Code of _C*iv'il._Fitocedure,' which is as per
Annexure –A. V V V
This pietivtlio'fii::,c0n'ili,n'gVon"for.preliminary hearing in 'B'
groupthis day,_–vtl3€§'v.CotiVrt~«njade the following:
5'Respondents'instituted suit against the petitioner, to
.fi"execute"in their faiioluér, the sale deed in respect of the suit
the consideration of Rs.4,000/-
deposited the court and to deliver the possession of the
suit plriaperty and for an enquiry into mesne profit under
A 20 Rule 10 CPC. After contest the suit was decreed
ii
//4
an
3
on 13.11.1989. Challenge made to the decree, in R.A
No.4/1990 failed.
2. An application has been filed to drai.’~.1_”l’.i_Vnal
decree pursuant to the preliminary decree ai_’_Ld”‘C-;ii_=:f.irrri_ed«%
in the appeal. I.A No.18 was filed under Q.r–dejr:i~34–l.:Ru.lAe ..
read with Section 151 CPC to deposit..CdSt”‘of{t.he.
subsequent to the decree.to.___theV’extent
comprising of Rs.15,000/– 8ilx°Rs.2Q,OO’C)/-._VV:respectively in
conducting the case lin_._”FDP–‘_VAat§V–Rs;2_;ijO0/~ per visit for 10
visits of the counsel friend E5an._qalor’e’.to’:Vv-‘Periyapattana and
misceiiiaineolus? Rs”.’2G,’OOO/- to conduct the final
decree’_pr0ceedVinQs. application was rejected on
29.0’6.20xO4,. * order was questioned by the
p€.tji’tioE;nlei’.Vp_in iVi.’I5\vv—-!\.i–o«.’I5/2004 filed under Order 43 CPC.
The.ma:_iiil;ai»iriability of the appeal was questioned. The
appe|late’.V’VlCou’rt by its order dated 27.03.2008 held that,
thelorder challenged before it is liable to be set–aside and
A rerrranded the matter for fresh consideration. Said order
Vidias questioned by the respondegts herein in W.P
/7
No.3.7560/2005. The petition was aiiowed and the
impugned order dated 27.10.2004 was set~aside.
However, it was observed that, the petitioner is
held entitled to work out his remedy in accotd’a”nce..:
law.
3. In the finai decree pr”oc_eedAEngs,”_a ‘ine~mo[“wa’s._VV
filed on 2o.o1.2o1o seeking?’delivery.p’of,j’thetTscheduie’V’
property. The triai court or’derVed’V”‘th.e isisueo of delivery
warrant. The said order fbeein,i’_’oue_stioned in this
petition.
–. Prasad, iearned senior
advocate”V–apipeaVrin§AVfo*r,:’t_he petitioner contended that, the
trialicourt ou§ht..to_ have foiiowed the procedure under Rule
.0 $o«.a:m:I,,0 ‘3.A.or~..order 34 cpc. He further contended that,
withouvt”Rj~,–._pifoyiding any opportunity to the
deten.da:nt/’petitioner, acting on the memo, the impugned
” ‘order has been passed E.e., to issue deiivery warrant,
‘March is iliegai. E.
/J
5. Sri S.V.Giridhar, iearned advocate appearing
for the respondents, on the other hand submitte:d.,:’_:th_at,
pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2010, impu.g:n’ed~w’.hsf§:5::j_}’
the delivery warrant was issued, possessio-rtwas».taker1_and’*~ V
has been handed over to the de»cre£:-hoider’.-A.’Herirje,
impugned order is not iiable___V to tab-eh’set–a’si’d,g.,,.,tearned.ii;
counsel submitted that, the:’w:ri’t.._petition_i’has? become
infructuous.
6. Ijhaive .periu§ed .:’t’h .petift’ion pa pers.
7. _VTh:eg_procee’d’iinos’v:~pending before the court
below, is fitiriaiud_ecree.:”p.roce_edings and not a case of
execution of 0the”iv.,’fina’i–..’:”decree. The court, after the
conci’usi.on of’-t.h_’e”1end’uiry, has to pass the judgment and
decr
8.’ 3f’j_’§’.he court beiow without noticing the nature of
proceedingvs before it and the scope thereof, has iilegaily
A ailtowred the memo dated 20.01.2010 and has ordered for
‘ issue of delivery warrant. The impugned order passed in
%\.
/”
t”‘
the final decree proceedings is one without jurisdiction,
irrational and is also illegal.
In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER)
i. Writ petition is allowed. V4’Ih9ips_ugned,.”_order
quashed.
ii. The court conclude
the final a period of
acopy of this order is
iii. ‘extend ready co~operation to
of the final decree
‘*Vw,QMocogs
_ V Sd/fl
Judge