IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25" DAY or AUG'JS.'i';A.2o.t1'oZ.g T'
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE' A_.N. VE_l$TUGOP.R'LA.§§OW:DAT
WRIT PETITION NO.'§1..Zt:3?/20Vi0.(GM-C:RC)
BETWEEN: J t 1
Ravikurnar, A
S/o. A.Srini\_/as&a:<aju,;_A V _
Aged about3._42;ye_ar.s;T
R/at No.10 1.5.? 'Mva1i_n roa-«r_.i,*~_ ' A
Nagarajap.pa»..l-;ayout, .. "
Ad u'god'iv,-.BVa}ngai¥ore."*--_ '
(By Adv.)
AME;
V' _ l<:._.-$.E'~J_agaraj'av'~-Iver,
S/o. iat-e Srinivasa,
..$'§.r]'ce"d.e'ad by his L.Rs.
1(_a)V'V'E:'i~(..i\l.Ashok Kumar,
-. «S/o. late K.S.Nagara3a Iyer,
Aged about 50 years.
1(b) K.N.Anii Kumar,
S/o. late K.S.Nagara3'a Iyer,
Aged about 48 years.
1(c) K.N.Aravind,
S/o. late K.S.Nagaraja Iyer,
Aged about 45 years.
.. PETITIONER
2. Smt. S.Vasanthamma,
W/o. late K.S.Nagaraja Eyer,
Aged about 68 years.
All are residng at Devaraya
Samudra viiiage, Avani Hobli,
Mulabagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri S.N.Bha_t & Sri M.GopaVl",-.,l3idys.) I
This writ petitionisy filecl'tv1n'd.ernArticles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of Endia p~rayin_.g.tofjqu'ash the impugned
Order dated 5.4.2010"'passed._i"n_ EX;.5i/2'009 by the Court
of Civil 3udge'««g.,(_§%r.D:n.)g8:.~'CJM;' .i{--nlar;' vide Annexure - A
and call__ fa': records:~in1- _VEX__..-S1;,f2OO9' from the Executing
Court, in co:n'sgeguienc'es-,oi-.i.t; allow the Execution petition
as p.rayedllfo'r..
A'T.Vhi's_petitio.ri~.co'r=nir:«g"on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group this day, .the._ Court made the following:
ORDER
is the decree holder. Respondents are the
“legalv lrepjresventatives of the judgment debtor. Petitioner
had the suit for specific performance against Sri
‘CK-.S.iliagaraja Iyer. The suit was decreed on the basis of a
compromise petition filed in the Court. The decree was
passed on 27.11.1998. Alleglng that, the sale deed of the
property was not executed, the plaintiff/decree holder filed
L0/«
Z.»
V ..i.’v:l§5.E:S.PQVN_l)El\lTSi»
execution petition in the Court below. The_4.jud,gment
debtor having passed away and his legal re§jére’se’nta’ti-v___eS_V
having been made parties, filed _ob_iections;”*fh~e”exe:cut.ion .
Court has dismissed the execution :p’eti’tioin_lorfithéf’g_ro:;end
that, the decree holder ha_s’«–..riot made, out’g.r’o.und’s
execution of decree after |apsej.oi’–1__0 year.s_andfi%5 months.
Aggrieved, the decreeholder ljaislifilledilithgis writ petition.
2. He:~a’r”dg:.Vg:pIthe ::__1ear.ned’*«.c’ou’n.selV:f’on both sides and
peru.sed: . it
. Sri : Dikshit, learned counsel
app_eVaring~~ for Apeltitioner contended that, the impugned
«perve’rse*”*a’nd illegal. The period within which a
Vde’cre’ea.lca’n,_Vbe executed is 12 years and the execution
“p4etition'”h.aiving been filed within the limitation period,
cou”ld_hot have been dismissed and hence, interference is
. igcaflled for.
4. Sri S.N.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for legal
representatives of the judgment debtor on the other hand
Ki
/”
,5′
contended that, the petition is not maintainablefi.aVn’d,_:’if,_the
petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned ordeitishoul—d__ji.s.e_eiqV
remedy in the revisional jurisdi_ctio_n of.’thi’s.:Couwrt’~under,
S.115 Of CPC.
5. I have perused the’w.ri’tpetitionV_p’a3:$’ers1.r 3
6. The objectiori.raised; S.N.Bhat to the
maintainabilit_y*o__f the”‘p’eti:t’ioVn revision petition
is not ten..-able _,the,_«-decisionflsof the Apex Court in
the :.:case’_’of:lvfE3,iJ_E§li?A agvmvis. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003 i A
AIR “it has been held that, if injustice
or;e*xtrem.e~-prejudice is caused, recourse may be taken to
pe”t’itio”n~.,_under’mArticle 227 of the Constitution. In the
it not entertaining the petition merely on the
g~roun’d the execution petition has been filed after 10
.. V,years-~:’5 months, injustice has been caused to the decree
V”>hoilder. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India. M
‘/”
/.1
7. Indisputedly, the decree was
27.11.1998. The execution petition.V__gwa.s'[filed
21.3.2009. The decree is execuitab|:e’gw,ith_in1″a* ..per;ogdilo_igi2 7
years. The execution petition haVing’v–been.’.f.lled withiriitlheg
limitation period ought ‘beenit-ico.r:.siVdered in
accordance with Court has
dismissed the_petitio_ri_ :th:3’t.,:”ti5i_’e..’execution petition
filed after tenable. The view
taken pverxilerse and illegal. It has
not §.;rel’er_réd’p’.. ‘to. the. a p plica ble for execution of
decrees. 4’ in the impugned order are
thus i_l|egual.~.V g =
is._.4:1’n;’t.h’eresult, the writ petition stands allowed. The
giniipugnxed order stands quashed. Execution petition stands
restoredvéto the file of the Court below for disposal in
_ V accordance with law.
Sd/– ;
JUDGE T
Ksj/ –