IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUAR'§{";"2'CQ L
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEIV. JAGANDNAi*H,AN'CT
C.R.P.No. 1007/2&0
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT.R.SALAMMA _
W/O RANGASWANiY._,"; _
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC:COOLIE, V. V' ' '
SMT.ANA1'§fTA'}2y!£AI\dJ'\ "
w/0 CI_.-IAANNA-EPA," »
AGED ABOUT 55"--¥sAI2s,¢
OCC.:'C,O0LIE';:,IIIjj' " A '
GOVINDAPPA':@A-GQVIVNDA -
s /0' 'BELDARV BAsAP.PA~,.
AGE£)'A_BOUT' 45 'YEARS,
ocVc:co"eLIE..VV---
BAsAvA§AJ ------ A "
C A . 3 S/O' SEIANKRAMMA
TADEVD ABOUT 48 YEARS,
"'LAKSHMAMMA
W/O*SUND.ARACI~iAR
CAGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
'» ' COOLIE
ALL 132/ 0 III WARD PATEL NAGAR,
NEAR VENKATESI-IWARA TALKIES,
HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT..... PETiTiONERS___
(By Sri.S.G.Kadadal~:atti, Adv.)
AND
DJVIADURAI NAIDU
s/o VEERASWAMY NAIDU V '
AGED 72 YEARS,
HINDU, 3RD WARD,
PATEL NAGAR, HOSPET, _ V g_
BELLARY DISTRICT. V' . .. RE-SPQ.NDENT
(By Sri.A.Vijay Kumar Bhat';..Adv_{)
This petition is filed u7nder'fSeetio_n'v1f1Sj.of CPC against
the order dated 'V'1.2.01:'.gf}"J.'():VV p'a_ss_ed 1 in'Execution Case
No.210/2005 on 'the'-fileg of the '~Pr'1.f_"Ci_viifi Judge (Sr.Dn.) 85
JMFC, Hospet, rleje§;ting~.t'iae o_bje_etions' contentions raised by
the judgment€'debtorsi§
made the"-f_oiiowi'ng':' __
E E VQRDER
This petition co:nVing¢V:on__for admission, this day, the court
the 'learned counsel for the parties finally in
l'Vre'sple'e.tV of_v4the'«vrevision petition filed by some of the judgment
debtors in Vthej court.
*2. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent at
outésetflisubmitted that the impugned order passed by the
~.jE3x”eo1C.itiing Court does not call for any interference because
,2»
an
though the respondent was successful in getting a decree in his
favour in the suit filed by the respondent in C).S.l\Io.2′.1′,i’.._l9E§J5,
for declaration and possession of suit schedule”*prop:erty,x
appeal preferred by the defendants was dismiss.edlV_iib3?VvhtniS court
in R.F.A.No.1191/2004 on 13.08.2007:iib;.f”«_pc:;fif:mi:;g”‘the
judgment and decree of the trial _court’.—-A There ga;fi,erwardé}
respondentwdecree holder movedithe for
delivery of vacant possession of are in
the hands of the judgment thot1fgh__delivery warrant
was issued by could not be
executed for Once again the
application for delivery
warrant the :’a.plpl«ication is one such which was
filed in_.,E’.P.2il”0,;’:V2O0lf5 a.nd”: the court after considering the
iflobjectlons:,,,’filed..by thiefjludgment debtors ultimately passed the
ordercirejéctiingi”the_j..objections raised by the judgment debtors
l anddirectedlthelbailiff to break open the lock: of the premises
occupation of the judgment debtors and direction was also
to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hospet, to
_._:ii15roy§ide assistance to the bailiff to execute the delivery warrant.
Er
will be taken. in view of the said fact being brought to the
notice of the Executing Court, the Executing Court ought to
have refrained from passing the impugned order. There.fo’re,
the submission made is that the matter be ren1itted”–to ~
Executing’ Court for fresh consideration, _
5. Having thus heard both sides:’and_’_i into
the provisions of the Karnatakai__SC1~um Area (Improv«e:n1–ent’: and * it
Clearance) Act, in the case on handui’tris’VVnot disvpute that the
respondent–decree ho1der”‘wiasA suc*{:gess’1’ujii «the suit filed by
him i.e., O.S.21/19.95 fovrrideciaratioiniiandiipoissession of the
suit property.and”the:;appeai=prefe-rrediby the judgment debtors
was disrnissed bfirviiithispj’Cro4urt:'”in’R.F.A.No.1191/2004 by order
dated 13.08.”‘.2QO7_. xNoiivhere:”_.i’n the suit proceedings nor before
__this c,o_ip,1rit ‘in the ‘above ‘mentioned Regular First Appeal, the
‘_i1.1.(Sig),’«”‘fik(“:Ii1i_v’C’;.(.33.}ILC17S took up any contention or ground to the
ef:fe.ct’i.t_if;;at”the___sLii”t’V..area false within the Slum Area as per the
v_provisi”ons»j. of Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement and
ii.”‘Ciieariance)”‘nct, 1973 and as such the Executing Court has
ciear1y’ -observed that though the present petitioners referred to
ficevrtain proceedin§s initiated by them way back in the year
,9»
: 3
1995, the petitioners never pleaded such a ground in the___tria1
court in their written statement nor was there any reference
made to the said ground before this cofigrt .
aforementioned Regular First Appeal. __Aps_such;’ti’1*e:’_EXer:uting
Court did not find any merit in the i’~objep’oti.onseraisedi’by».__tI’ie_e
petitioners. Moreover, the eXe<:uti–n_g court' cannot i..go.V_pbev§ond
the decree when the decree had attiaiin:Ved.iinaiityiii:
6. The other aspect iis<iithatii*. petitioners aiso
approached this '=–cvourt:.*" 1:': v_ petition in
W.P.No.60164 iofithis court by order
dt.£8.01.2010 petitioners for interim
order. This 'fact hast'-»been"su'ppir*essed in the present revision
petition that"eisiifi.1eid _sn.bseo{11ent to the order passed by the
….learne.d.i–p: Single Jud-gev inpfthe aforementioned Writ Petition on
.1i0i..pTheVpresent petition was filed on 20.01.2010 and
thierei'is;no' viih..i_speriiiin the present petition about the petitioners
hhaviné" fiv1ied*"ithe writ petition and they having been
"u_nsue::__(:essI"1.1I in getting any interim order passed in their
_of_avour.°i §\
we/X
r
Jrn/-
7. Under the above circumstances, I see no good ground
made out for this court to interfere with the impugzieciforder
passed by the Executing Court more so keepinggi-in ‘
scope of revision 11/ s 115 of the __CPC__. ‘1%-}};.:%”””’
therefore is rejected as tacking any rriAerit;’an{i eo.nsetjuent£y_the
interim order passed earlier also does no’tv.survive,_ A
8. It is also made clear’ at this’ji1I1Vet11Vre.that the’ dismissal of
this petition shall not eorrie flzhe: ‘of the present
petitioners in the profijoieeeiirigsfiiiaiiielfi is ‘pending.
t<j JUDGE
