§N THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGAL{§_R§
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF' MARCH " %
BEFORE " ' H % T 1
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1c£§§)§J%
wnrr 92:':-may no.;.79o6i2.§'e6 temaércx V %
BETWEEN
1 SR1 G-ANGE Gow:>A@s:::mA':§ Pa'!?s'A _'
@KENCHE GOWDA -- V 1
s/0, YAJMAN cnsmmxmi .
AGED ABOL}'I'--59"YEAE§S , _ :
RIAT BEEF'gAGFg}\§A¥IAL'!Ji 3 ' ' *
YE?)1YU}?:4'£?OBLl.,_...';'. ' ._; " .
KUNEGAL TALUK, . PETHEQNER
(Sri ViNA":f'AKA --B.;1r:r>vT $3352 i«;«:;f<.:=;--.- A$H'o;{V--HARANAHALL1 ASSOCIATES)
AND V VV ' é '
w/<3. GANGE Gowm @'S'RI c:;ANGAiA:~£
Ai.Z}EID ABOEIT 49 'YEARS
.» rR,IA'{" D0DDAm.i:;URE; VILLAGE
._ '- YEEHYUR AHOBLE """ "
' . 3 }sIUN1'G1~'.L *s.gLUK RESPONEBENF
A€R:E:3.PC) PaD'E:1*-K?' SER1}'ED§
A n,__'§'I-£}Z_S WIMTPETITION 1:3 FELED UNDER AR'I'I{3LES 226 AND 227 OF
'frag ::c3;~;s*i*1.%i*1i':'1r~: OF INEDIA PRAYING TO CALL ma THE RECORDS IN
_E"xEcUT10rws'PET1*r1oN N612,/06 1N OS,N£}.316/198 VEDE ANN-A 99: THE
"£«*':_;,E,_0P{.'rHE cum, JUBGE (JR.DN),-JMFC5 KUNEGAL ANI} E'£'C.,
THIS WRIT' PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
"--4 :ré:'3iA£«2:NG IN B GROUP, THES DAY, THE ceum' MADE THE
" FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has beef: filed challenging
the Civi} Judge, Junior Divisien, i1:{‘~___
Q.S.NO.316/1998 issuing the v’aga::;§i’e the
pefitioner in the execution pefifietz by Vthe’iee.sepoi:;f:1e£1£.
2. The facts re1evfa3é1;tI”or ef’ $1113 pctiticm are as
under: _ H n . t. ‘V
The VV 5}’; the respondent who
ins?;itute€i__ decree for maintenance.
The -‘decree in the suii on 19.10.2005
awarding znentlily. of Rs.120()/- to the plainfifi’ i.e.,
the I’t”T;Sp0_I.1dcIa1t’-. the charge of the right of the
was on the properties of the petiticxner.
V”.e~xtesponde;1t filed Execution Petition No.2] 2006
Z ancl the execution petition, she sought for arrest and
” i§’ ‘«._ é;e1A;e}:1,1:.ic3i1v.V<_i:»«.:t" the petitioner ami also sought for attachment of sale
mexgahle and immovable property. in pursuarzce of the netice
' iggeied, the petifioner appeared before the Trial Ceurt and fileti
khis objecfions. The Tria}. Court heard the counsel for both paxfies
axtzé wide oréer dateé 1?.'?.2€3G6 ever ruied the objecfions and
3
directed the petitioner to make the payment of
one Week from the date of the said order writ}; the
respondent herein to take legal £61′ ..v:{e;:o*%.7ei;’sff Said L
amount. Thereafter, the matter wee. A ijoeted. ~ “of
process fee and the Trial Court as tide
amount directed was nei;.._ The
process fee was paici the next éate, the
Presiding Ofifice. the case was
cafied. out sewed, the judgment
d3bt01″/ therefoxe, the Trial Court
passeé eke Warrazxi: against; the judgment
debtor] petifiefier SV’Vl’It.§}§VE3A(\3’v1Lb'”fV€3::,”~’:hVll}I1€.f iaayment of the process fee. It is
. flxis _o£~;ie:__j£w*i;ich.’hae.bee33 {challenged by the petiticmer befoze thie
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
–VI’espe’i1:!1ei:iA1§ iiieugh served has not pa’: in his appearance. The
;gtoi;1e£..?_;haf”aIise for my consideration is:
“Whether the order dated 26.1{}.2006
issuitlg the arrest Warrant is illegal and requires
any interference ?” :