Shri.Somashekar D Patil vs Shri.D.S.Patil on 6 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Author: A.S.Bopanna

 

IN THE HIGH 005123' 01:' KARNATAKA AT  _

DATED TE-HS THE 6TH DAY oF_NoVEMm;RT200§P;2_ Arm SR: (LA. KREEEHNAPPA, ADVS.)

' ':'§._N }l'_._:C'    """ 

A   £,I:+1;R4:':;€;§*g"r>:aT1L S/Q SR1 SHIVANAGQUDA PATEL

._ "'__P.£'3ED7<§§.BOi5'T 32 YEARS

A ' Rza NG;j_1.IE6, 4'"! FLOOR,
""3Rﬁ..__NiA¥§€, 2% CROSS, NPICS LAYQUK

BAsA_vEsHwARANA.I3_Rf;f;:":._

(BY SR: ':'.v. VMAYA RAGHAVAN, Amr. FOR R..:;'_:'&'i§g}..f: f  

THIS PETITION IS FELEQ UNDER  

C.P.C., AGAENST THE ORDER DA'I'Eb ~£3"?'.'1-0A.2£3_()9_P}XSfE3E§D.jiN V'

EX.P.No.1'?"€)Gj 2003 ON THE FILE 01=*,A'I'H:E_§'DL;V.'c:TY:_ j
CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH 4-e=1»),<_ REJEc:fr:N(3_ 'E.'H.I_3:"=
APPLICATION FiLE§ UNDER SEC; :51 QRCRC. I *

This Petition having bee11__L: 'Ib«f:V._org17ers on
29.10.2009, coming nvf0r'_pr«jn<}uz"1§;:3:ns;nt this day, the
Court proneunced the foilt;1.vi,21g:  ;    ' 

...C.?...~1...1..:.3-"é.;._'E';_A3iEl__i,,  %

Th€V:"'p€§'titiOI§}é'5V:'V" the judgment debtor in

Ex.Pe1:i1:i0r1 NE)'-.--. He is (telling in question the

'orcier Q?.10;2*@G9.«::1s a: Ann€xur6~D to the petitiaia,

  " the Executing Cami: has rejectsd the

   appiicgijiﬁn 'A  by the peiiﬁcner herﬁin to recail the

 «gitslivaxy xi:-.§é:*:'°a31t and has thereafter réisszzed the delivary

   with Eibsrty is break spasm {ha Eaafrk, if the

 '=--{:§;*@1};ii$€:$ £3 under iacfzié. Tha respandents herein are the

1 L R  ' ~ ﬁécree haﬁderg, 'g

'3'



2. The brief facts leading to the eupuguee --(_')':1'de«.t'_:

that the petitioner herein who is the son    "

reependent and the brother of the Zsecerui  -I1ad'--Vé

izlstituted a suit in 0.s.:sIe.793/2904 "

respondents herein and also hie.: i11other'---S_:11t., 'V

Pati} and sister Smt. Ni§n3.e1}a ‘eijvit one for
paxﬁﬁon and separate 1 schedule
properties. In herein who
were the eﬁpiieaﬁon in I.A.No.10
‘1.1}I1d€I’ of C.?.C. (hereinafter

referred ﬁe ae for an Carder ef mandatory

_ injune§;ie1:e.. te reeeiolﬂre ithe plainﬁff from the suit ‘A’

The Erie} Court had dismissed the said

epe1ieeeie:e”‘e~e%.. e§{;”its order dated 39.07.2008. The

V–reepo’f:de11etAe” ‘Xvere therefere before this Court in

][%égm.e.:§e.eovzgzaoos {em}. This Ceuri after detailed

..eeeeiee:eeen, by iis ereer dated 1.30.2088 aliewed the

see aside the impugned erder ef the triei Court

.£

and ganted an order of adwintexém mandatory _

for removal of the petitioner herein fxfem peeseeeio:i”<§f«~1;he" * a 'V

piaint 'A' seheduie property and ree§0r;:tti0nA'eof

ante as existed prior to ._ *

petitioner herein quesﬁoned t1jze..VV<§rC16'r_vLAbefeI'e.3;11i?,:§HC*I1'b1€
Supreme Court, the ?eti_'£;ion was not

entertained.

3. ” ciated 01.10.2008 in
M.F.A.No-,8C=’f 1«.as.Waﬂab}e for execution was

put inte exee41,;1:i:3I:VaVV”a::_j; “r’,I:1’e.’:_i:e4spo11dente herein by ﬁling the

E;\fo;1?Z_QMQV/2008. At an earlier point, an

‘-£}’§.;§e(;t,

the petitioner herein who is the

pending execution petition ﬁ1ed_the £.#pp}ieatief3;VV»fo:: ,

of the delivery warrant which to 15¢ * The
petitioner is therefore :V%’..¢Z’3*£1’ee:t~<:;oz1teA1'1eiI1g that
the interim orderef mendeterﬁ ':.granted- is not
available itself is new
disposed ' 'off' –

4. jelolla, learned eeﬂier eeuneei

on behalf ef !V_[ei’i;}appa, learﬁeé Ceunee} fer the

‘V “petiﬁi-o§;ie;,:’*-eexxd. S:€iV ‘if”.”~’.’:”‘;’ ‘Vijaya Raghevan, Eearned Counsel

‘fer and perused the entire petitieri

, pager?’

_ [L5, ” -… :’O:1 hearing the respective ieamed ileum-eei, it

of’:e–..:s§:;,~;e:e=¥:..'{13..?iee the queetien fer eensieieraﬁon in this petitiee

‘ is._e}§tIr1 regard te the stjus of the interim order on the

disposal of the main matter. Fllfthﬁf it is

considered as to whethar the passing of i

decree should be ccmsidered as a;»Ac0i1¢i1;;.Si{;f1i’A’;>f_

‘x:ermi11atiI1g the entire proccéedings Soﬁa: to ,

interim order has merged with oiitqiinie.

6. Having noﬁéééii. the: thatiii aiises for
decision making in this peﬁmoiiithe cited by the

learned Caunséii r§t:e§is.v:L:ofisidei*;atiGf1’mg’ the outset. The

decisioniivirz__iii%3}’f’v£:g§€of AND OTHERS “VS-

S}§ARNAPA.P2%~iANi3iV (Am 1968 MYSORE 283)

_ cited ” the sénior counsel would Ia}? dawn the

interim Qrdar passed by the High Court

of the revisieii petitian wauld not

V -Qpersiiie aiiﬁér’ “f£:11e disposal of the revisian petition and the

” have Iii} jurisdietion ta enforcc the interim

jﬁagsed by time High Court after revision petition was

of. in the decisien in the case of RAEVIESH

‘N

AKRE AND OTHERS -Vs–~ SMT. MANGALABAI

AKRE AND OTHERS (Am 2002 BOMBAY 4s’2f)L_,; isgseeeheigee

that the order of temporary i11juI1cti€i:£1″pz3;sL3ed “fa_veur of;

the defendant in the suit is ;10’£ ‘e>iee.utabieA

plaiﬁtiﬁ’ has got the suit itseif diepeeed ofevqefithout ‘V

prosecuting the same. A_the_<"f'1ret— abeve eases, the
order is ax: interim orcief passed: revision petition

before the Hig3;*'1 Q:§311It " 'irzﬁihe nature of 31}

eréer for W'i'i11§I'i§aax?§ifA1g fh.e"~amd'tﬁ1€"and taking possession
of the prefeerty' ¥:as…"azj1 erder ta eperaie during the

pendeney efihe §eViei§ii'i§etiii0;1 and as such, the said

'V"e{f<3e;-3: nee xbe""a¥aﬁab}e after the dispesal of the

'1*'e3zis:-:61: "i:se§f. In the secend of the above eases,

' in 3; Vef' plaintiﬂ" both the piaintiﬁ" as well as the

~ 3-V'a___§eife:1dai11;_A&i1ad ﬁled separate applieatiens seeking order <21'

VA injunction pending disposal of the suit The

'11' epgziiieatien of the plaintiﬂ" was rejeeteci while the prayer

"frgaée by the defendant gees ganted. The grant. of

injunctien though was for putting the defe:;§_i$_Iﬁ:'44L:4'« V.

pGSS€SSi0I1 of the propexty and to

interference was in 9. suit where the; Of ?'F"?3$

such that the passing of t11eV.j1;KdgIIi€Ij;.f'~-w0u}(3'.%.

entire dispersal of tha suit, tf1f:VVi3V;bove
two cases with regard £3181 thfi'
interlocutory erders cf the mam
proceedings order and the
Same w0q}giV::*1Qi:~ e §;;é¢uti0:,1 subsezquently,
since :9 the rights of the parties

wauld be a€9ai§a%31éV' :'1§r4i'1",_lit»s:: Zdisposal of the main matter is a

'.s:0nc1iis:1c{§;' p§;siti€5:':«a:_3_,dthere can be 11:3: éispxzte abaui the

E.-Rriwaver, the quesijon that raquires 1:0 be

ﬁédresseci is; Whﬁthﬁf the pasition Weuld be

___"'7'diffarén{ if such imterlacutmy order is §as:;ed in a

".V.}:2V§:o€:eedi:1g$ ix; which the ﬁassmg at' a preiiminargi éacrae

and thereafter a ﬁnal decree is eontempiated uI1derf',_

code and in such circumstm1ee, whether the 'Cf "

the prelimizaaxy decree could be e0I1:3itie'1*edA_ 2

of the suit and would it alone wipe of

interlecutoxy order and also xvieemer tIie'12at1:fe,» iii' the
i11te1'}oe12t0:y erder erdtiie isssue
and in such circumstances whether e=11e'}ij;}1_f{ler could still

be executed 'P

8. 4. learned sexlior counsel

placed relianee en .t11eA’deei»eion in the ease ef VENKATA

A-i’VRee&m?’:’A3>:§> “QTHE§RS”’49vs~ PETHI REDBY {AIR 1963 SC

§’9–“2)’ _t_eu the preliminary decree for partition is

“ﬁnal The decision in the ease of MQOLGHANI}

” Axe weeks –vs– DEPUTY DIRECFGR, CONSOLIDATION

{(1995} 5 SCC 531) is relied en te eentend

{hat} the preliminary decree weuld in feet declare or

éieteﬁnizze the rights in the property anti the ﬁnial decree is

1.}.

10. 011 analysis ef the above cited decisions, it is

Seen that in the case ef VENKATA REDDY AND o’:’;:’-:}§:-Rs?

the Hoﬁble Supreme Court was censideréng .

and effect of 2: preliminary decree in the,_bae}~;@*6tﬁf3j:d.’Ve£F we ” ”

provision centaitled in Secﬁon 28 ‘~¢1′–X tﬁe. “i”’19oxzi1i’c;i,gi1?}:

Insoivency Act, 1920, which st£iteti..}\?itki’

decision by a eempetent. CQ11rf:’fits”-._e0ntai1<1r:d first
previso to the said sectioii'. ' it is held that
a decision is 'be ss as the Court

rende3:*ing":.it i–:s'e0iier:fIf{§;er},' urialterable except by resort

to such p3re'vi$ione" r§;%e% '(fade sf Civii Precedure fer

–v1ieversa};,. vns:ediﬁeai;iQ:__}____r;r amendment. It is in the

V’§;;~;:1<:kg3"«:::und'~0f..the_1'e:qL1i:"ement of the said enactment even

3, pr£:1ii::§I1a:';a%"'ej§}.e€:i'ee is held: te be a, fmal deeisien.

L" 53;": the case 9§ MOOLCHAND we OTHERS, the

..__ E%ezi§b1e Supreme Ceurt was eoneideﬁng the effect ef a

A..__4 §;re1i:11ina.I'y decree in the Eight; ef the pmvision centaizied

.;-….

in Sectjen. 5(2) of the U.P. Zameendari Abolition

Reforms Act, 1950. In that (:irc1u11st2a13,c.;¢»,’V:”‘-:;g:h’éii:’ T1′-¥7£i(b”3′ »

required for the said pravisian ts C§O3£I1fij’:A i1}_tC3__

declaration or deter::{1i11aﬁ0n_<;4_f" .

.af View
that once a preiimi;1a1″y’£i§,éVcr¢e-?_V: ﬁfogreedmgs
so far as deciaratign of ;fig1fit$., the ianci are
concerned coméiv are to be
vm§’}s:€:d 1? further held that
for the .. 5 “{2} of the said Act the

pendezacy of “fi}f;1a}_déc_15éé pfofszeeditxgs carmot be censidereé

3.23 p<:11.:i:i.Iig' ;.'::inCeV t1*;*§ _I__'_E_ghts am already determined. But in

"me saga §£S€21f, the Ir~Eon'bIe: Supreme Court was

':ia.'x:i1:zg'*-"r.*£0t§:' 3535 E16 dafmiﬁon of "(}€{3I'€€" 3.3 mntained in

Section" 133(2)', read with the provisions cantained in Ordar

4%%2%r:v%1é;:1e¢«18{2; and aim Qréer 26 Rule 14 of the (mg. has

' __ :{'§E31{ i ;a S 'Afellovg-*3:

“j
.-

“35, The deﬁnition of “decree” contained

Section 2(2) read with the provisions contained
Order 20 Rule 18(2) as also Order 25 Rule:—14:g,?f’* ‘

the Code indicate that a prelimgiftary decree».

first to be passed in a
thereafter (I ﬁnal decree is passed fo.2}f_’v_eAe;t::I’,1t::zZ*:.4 ‘

separation of shares irz~..,4a’~’©0rd’é1nee
proceedings held Lgnder 25, ..’Y*I1ezfeVf1re,
thus, two stages iii’-..¢.;ij%«–s:.¢ii: The first
stage is reached when7 is
passed undef ezhicizfe _ef parties in

the .~ : ” “are: determined and
deefgxreci. is the stage when 5:

final ‘decree gaege which concludes the
lzyreawediﬁqsyv befofe court and the suit is
h¢u:it)e”–eerrte to an end fee” all praciwlrral

(ezxzgﬁzasis suppiied}

12.” tilt} ‘feet that ie the very same View expressed by

§.~E_»{:;’;’r:1;5;AT¥:>ie Supreme Court in the eubsequezat decisien in

V “‘-‘?;l;ﬁe___i;e.se of HASHAM ABBAS SAYYAI) relied cm by the

fu-

iearneci Counsal for the respendemts. Hence, 2

such observation with regard to the ‘suit’ c:0i1.”e_iI1gV’T~td an V’

end fer a1} practical purposes WhjB:1&’>V ‘tk1¢_

passed 311$ the proceedings art: c011(:iiw,:€ie’:Vd is

for consideration of the facts evéigimg
since as noticed above,. ﬁnal £i€§CiSiV¥)I1 had
been discussed by the __( “:.c.uI’t in the
facts evoivizag iI:§”t}’1§:’:VSai<i1'._c3;sé$§ effect of the

preliminary of the proviasicsns of

the relevant._:=311éCi;:r3_<§=§:1ts"~s§EI{1ig:hfv;:1s being considered in

that case. But-11:1 i:hc"' §;:i;_;_'ef§€:n{ case, the conclusion of the

suit' §3.:§:1 ?_I,§.;1?.~',': paS3i_,1ig ef the ﬁnal decree would have 3

<:?_iffe:"~3m d i:*:;eI:7s§V9n while considering the iZ{1t€I'-it-"iﬁ right of

§;*éift§eé the preliminary decrees, the parties are

iaajaid "ice-owners being antitied ta a share in the

11116 uitinaaie fallen: of the Same is 'ta be

K cta1:{siﬂe':4ed hased an £136 nature of the intarlacutery order

' "[35 passed. It woulé 31% be useful to refer :0 the 'Vi{3'W

expreased by ‘(he Privy Councii in the case of

ROY ANE) 0’1’ HEIRS VS. PARAMESWAR ‘

OTHERS (Am 1943 PC 11) m*herein:i€”is–~helei

“A aartition suit in which L3 ;3r¥;e}irr1imi1–<s; _ " T

dacree has been passed Vstillv-a
§__u__;3; and the rights of :1z¢};§a;~::es L are
added after the have t§V;§"¥:1r§
adjusted at the timefﬁ".

13.’. Théiféi.'(}r¢;”xL7i1éft-gganjbe deduced is that in all

Suits af tlie. Lﬁaturti iiﬁhefé—_f)af.$Si:1g of 01113′ one decree is

_VVpr0vid§§d’u:3d€r Cede, the saif. would come :0 an and

.§3I§ ma cf ‘E116 decree. In that circtgmstance, all

i:3:tc1fi{::c1iiio;f;%v»._Q1;§iCéfs passed durirzg the pxsndency of the

suit z;s}’:31;11{:i.J rderge with the dscree and wozﬂd not have

V’ §11dé}3€:_;1&éﬁt existence 36 as ta: seek for execuiisn since

‘–«i:h:t§’§{§€5€§r€€ in itssif wauici became executabie. Hawﬁver,

” suits in which the passing sf two decrees nameiy,

‘-o
I’

prelirnirzary and fmai is provided for under the Code5T’V€ven

if the preliminary decree is passed, in law,

not conciude until the ﬁnal decree which is..t%:,>§¢:c1:t%;v;E:s1e is”

passed, though the right 0f the géts ‘

determined by the 1:Jr€1imina1jy.4_decft–::: ‘* E§.*é’:;. Size};

cases, in general though the iIit«a3fio:::.1td€, in such ﬁvem, it wmﬂd remain in

f<31*cT€*Ae'v5:311 afiigzrﬂie pagsing of the preiiminary éecree arid

' dﬁiil '$62.. é1:.j.t <.§():1ciud,es by way of ﬁnal clacmé.

In ardar ta deiermizxe undar which of the. above

' " *{:1f: a:iS §, ma i3"1§€";I'}8r{:t}?:GIjf 0111?' wauid fall, the purperi ef the

Grdezr should be rzaticed in Each case in the backgaund of

the nature cf litigation. In this regard, distinctior:*'5s':1*1§ii;;1i}iiv,A4

alse ba made batxveen an interkxcutsry order': 'which{ 'T "

grzanted merely to preserve the stat1:sAA'££?hig1§;e:g§Si;sf;31§'tlf;e —

date of the grant of interizn Omar sf

suit as against an interlwutoxjs'-vL.§fder iﬁosiﬁvéiyf
change of the status em'.-$'i.i;1g 033 ﬁate 0f' {I16 of
interim order to a status e_:ae:j:S1 ¢d fan any date
anterior to '£116; daté'p:':' pas §ir1géTdfi.'Lh_éH_:€5rder and if such
anterior Status if have a bearing on the

acme} e:1tit1éméz1tVVby. 'xa%ay:':';.;f ﬁnal decree as yer the right

~':1§=:te1::1i':1¢d' :mdef"t3%1§:____§;"€1i1ni:1aI3? decree. This is II1OI'€

'$9' i.,I i they £:}f.__a suit far partition 'W'h$I'€ the extent of

right. t}ié'.V-Egﬁiiévable properiy is declared in terms {if

Oilfder 38(2) and the actual divisisn which takes

terrns sf Order 26 R1116 14 0f the Cede. in this

..__ f5egét'd, the law is weli Settied that while effecting partiﬁen

_ }E3r the purpasﬁ of final {i€f;':{":I'€€, the Court weuid be

i»

¢–

justified in awarding nlonetaxy Compensatian ‘

physical division of the pmperty where 3. partifgibny ”

bi? made witiiout destroying the Vi11″1′;1*i«:1siC_4′ V 2

propcirty 03:’ Where it would not be°;:§>1ix:ér1ie19it.,Aie.Vd.iS’tﬁ;f1§*

the exciusive p()SS€SSiOI1 of 01.36:’ baées,
it wouid be material as §;e:.:~,§h<€ bﬁﬂéiﬂgygand as
to which of the <:0~»$harer if; the (iata of
the passing 03$' situation, the

pasitive i:1tse1*iﬁ<";'£:{it;:§ij;}'–~._ ofdiggzﬁ are mandatory in

nature ti::_ Itestgré. '§i'11iCh existed sariier to

passing of thﬁ "OIv'€iV€:E'_ aiready put. into execution

_..§Qef(::r€,. Lpas$if1g–..§§f_ prelixninary éecree, but had not

"yet £23513: , vA€:§<t::;ii1te_d should be heid to continue tili the

pas:3ii":g'0f ﬂit: ma: decree as otharwise it wouid amount

3:9 tr~a{ré:fS'i1jy.'ésf justice and Wank} ammmt to awarding

V' §i;r»s:5::ziu_m to a person who may continua to disobey the

'-érdtsr 311$ evade $Xe$'Lii:i¢:}I1\%til1 the passing of praiiminarﬁy

decree and take advantage of the final decree by his own

default.

15. In this backdrop, the facts of ease’ ‘

would disclose that the suit; is far, P8IfﬁiLf},0:1_

plaintiff i.e., the petitioner }r1erein “‘:«:=;u@t ‘ $113196

Centending mat the properties preiperﬁes.
Though the {lefexldaﬂts ,’ t:§j1e;’-_£’esp@.f1tients herein had
disputed ‘C316 claim, p1*e]j111j}j1ar}2

decree eiateai’ ‘;E;1a8″ held that the petitioner

herein is exiiiifgleci f,§i;_ sine” ehare in suit eehedule ‘A’

..–‘a_I1<.i pi'operties~.. _____ __'E'he respendenis herein have :10

V"dez;:}ﬁ'E:.. '?$i"appea1 in R.F'.A'No.992f2009 and the

pre1*I::{:1'§;:ia13? *.%iee:*ee is stajgred. Eéetwithstaliding the same,

_ exgen . }i}et;iiie11e1:*':3 determined right it} one fcmrth

"if: the preperty is kept in view, the pu.rpor'{: of the

.___"'i:"1te:'1<}cut0ry nzandatory irijurletierz Qrdered in the inetani

ease requires to be neticeg. By the iE1§€I"l8C{3}.7{}I'y erﬁer

nu.

dated 01.10.2008 in M.P’.A.No.8{}’?1/2008 ((3§1I&3’H{_:%};V’:’;{‘:¥535i.. S'< K

Court with reference t0 materials an record haS"'I:@C::irééd a

ﬁnding that the petitioner herein was ﬁijt ;iv:i'po'ss¢ussiQi*1'i:;f

the suit 'A' SCh€di_l1€ property §}I_'iOI"' éis

$21ch the ad-im:erim order of 'ijééiidatofj/.V. far
removal 01' petitioner ante as
existed prior :0 igfige said order
has attained execuﬁon ta
take pessessiiczn. ziuesticn which 13 a
heuse the pﬁtitioner has

succeeded evad3ng.'A"t?r1:é:"~-éxecution by setting up an

_(V}bjfZ{3t"(I}_§("' who e§}S<3._V_Vifé;'iledV:L, caxmet new take aclvantage of

V. {hat 3 prelixninary dearm: has bean passéd

th§é1~.:3:éif£eIi'~ _ principle: detemﬁinéd above is natiaad,

V the e§éL::ui;i €:§ﬂ' ﬁz' Qtherwisﬁ 9f the xxatura of intarlocutory

iﬁjunctian gfanied in {ha instant sass weuid

3 -Zfiaxgeg fjearing on tha iinai decrzee. The petitioner thssugh

' " hélci exatitlad :9 (me feurthgshare, the athar Ciﬁfﬁﬁdaiiiiﬁ

put together are entitled ':10 three fourth share and the

ciefencs taken does 1101; indicate csnﬂict of

amongst the éefendants themselves and in _

respondenis herein together are elfijgitled "

Since the propsrty in question is re}sié:iie3:'it.is41.'.'

the real issue would arise whe11 L3f.1s pfocsd1;re~
Ruie 14 of the Code csmes the
instant Case is one s11V(:':1..V:"c::~3.se:h' 'status which
(existed on an antsfior def:€s"i",.0:"§",.¥i.<é iI1teriocu¥:ery

order shsuld _f1']€§ date on which the final

aiscree would V1:IisdE:A. »– such, the interlocutory' erder

I in '£116.. «iiisstsnt c£ise. <:sn1f§.ot be held is have merged in the

"}}rc{iir3,i:1a:y«.Mé;ejCrss and the sxscuting Court Wsuld be

V justiiissi f;:s{:iés.diI1g with the matter. The impugned

' Grder tfzsfefors does not call for iI'1t€I'if€F€I}.C€.

' in the result, the fs}1swing:

T
.-

2.?

ORDER

i) The Civil Revision Petitisn is dismissfrd.

ii) The petitioner is however granted ~

15.11.2669 to volugatarily vacate T’

the executing Court,

waxrant Shall be executeii.

Parties 1:9 bear their ow”-‘ﬁ ‘c9sts;. ‘

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

Shri.Somashekar D Patil vs Shri.D.S.Patil on 6 November, 2009

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel