in mm ma}; courrr or {T ~
cmovrr nsNcri__mf_ I V
DATED TI-H8 THE 22$? um?
3EF0RE x %/V0 A, _
THE HOIPBLE mm. 3.1:; ms
mgjm
BETWEEN:
SHRESHi\€AK;%_.i§fP
S/O BA1,M.YA1"1~«iI:<E::=I»;s\.fi'H., .
Ac.E:5oi'YEA'Rs;' "c;:;:c; 'Ac:-IE1-~1 av. I'S.éMj8AR'GII,: EQVQ)
AND:" I' I I
I " '1'HE"£.A§:T':_IS'II'I. CGMMISSIONER,
'I"I C._1'iiK0DI'.'v- ----------
' .2, "~TIzfi"A..ss1sTANT EXECUTIVE EPJGINEEIR,
= I"«._IVIENQR~~IRRIGATiON, ATHANI.
I' V. .*I*1¥:;; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
.. MINOR IRRIGATION, DHAK BUNGLOW,
SHAHAPUR, BELGAUM. RESPONDENTS
" * {BY $121 M1, HATTI, HCGP)
THIS PE'I'I'I'ION IS FILED UNEDER SECTION 115 OF' C.P.C.
AGAINST THE {BRDER DATED 24.012009 IN E.P. NO. 93/2003
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR, DN.) ATHANI,
RE-VIECTING THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION ESE
C PC .
'%,=-*""*-*"""'
PETITIONER ,
THIS PEJTETEON COMING ow FOR ADMiSSiON.f£'~Hi1Sv BAY,
THE comm' MAQE THE FOLLOWING: v. A
O R D E R
Pefitioner fiieei execution: ‘peti.ti01:i_:
against the respondents for ofiiiniinriy in ‘A J
LAC No. 13/ 95. _ the A h ” p¢udt}:i:iz;yi”:..;6’f eicecuiiioil
pmceedings, the Case W£i$i,.&!!Vi1i:AV..7£i’l1(‘:$f;i mcittlo was filed
on 23.09.2008 sigxxtfliiiiibgr petitioner and the
saiaiéiiibatiiii as’ fiildélit,
” MEMO
. the memo submitted by Advocate for
‘V _D€Ci’E3€ iHr.>1der/ 3 is as under:
‘ In the above case, the 138:’ reeeivvaé
figznrnpfinsatiorz amount, fully satisfied. Hence, the
above Executicn Petition may kindly be closed, in the
interest of justice and equity. ”
i ii 2. On the basis of the memo fiied, the Executing
closatd the execution petition on the very same day.
Subsrrquently, the petitioner flied an application under
Sectim} 151 of CPC to recall the ozfier dated 23.09.2008 on
i7<%%
3
the ground that the advocate: who has signed t11;c a:;;;:én_ao was
not engagtd by fhc petitioner and he had no
‘* no authozisafion. Behind the back of p::4:iti(§’:1’1§éi”‘, §:vitho1:z”t_A
knowledge and without authoiisatioéfi jfzipmhi 4]
been played on them. –‘4T_};lC {*j}if3_%i1tiI1g 2
impugned ordsr rejecting” apfibfiééfign by the
petitioner 011 the gfcrtgnd jurisdiction
and power to meal} Hcnccit, this
petition. ‘ ”
¢ €13, V on both the side and perused
the
order to put an and to the controversy
‘ ‘*–?3etv§;fc:*.é’:;–. j;:aj:1:ies, 21 dhmfioxz was issued to the (}t)ve1~;u3::<::1t
4 iE"1.ez§Vz:1ae:i* on earlier occasion to find cut Wlmther the
+..;~ssv;V:§onde:nts have paid and satisfied the ciajm in the
é}-zecutiolz petition bcfzne the Executing Ccurt. But the
leaxneti Govemment Pleadar failed ts) piace any maierial on
\,f\
record showing that the respondents have
made in the Executio11 Pefition.
5. Having Iegand the oaiure ioélde
by the petitioner in his Vepplieatiofi
fileé under Seetio1;:1g’*~V181 order dated
23.09.2008, the consideration.
The its mind to the natme
of committed an error in
ground that the Court has
Therefore, the impugned order
is Iiariic…
A For the reasons stated above, the following :
ORDER
i) The review petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned oxtier dated 24.01.2009 on
the application fiied under Section 151 of
C.P.C1. by the petitioner to recall the orfler
iv)
5 V.
dated 23.09.2003 in E.P.N§3;~93{_Q2{}O3 is
hereby allowed.
The orcier of file Exec’utfi{1’gb
23.09.2008 ° A.:~écé.:i;:fd_,_ I
Exccuti-tm__ Petifiogi ” N 0. 93 I Iris tafcd
on file. V V
1n2.;:tte;r’VA._;’au§’:(‘anded to the Executing
:C0’lE’1Si:Ci’v’.é I:’..-V”t}1($i memo dated
with law after
opportunity to both the
Sd/–
Judge