IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010211.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENu@OPA,.I,A-~{;O:WDA 3
WRIT PETITION NO.388s6/2,o':IjoE';A;\£D' '
WRIT PETITION NOs.404s3~4o4'9_I;2o1o
BETWEEN:
Sri EVl.Thyagaraju,
S/O. Eate Masaiamani,
Aged about 59 years, _ '
R/0. No.20S, 1lI'CTO.ss,§, _ _
Railway Layout, Main r,o"ad",;. _ A
Vijavanagat I ,
Mysore - 16;~R.,'" .. ' V
V ...PETITIONER
(By Sri-.__KeshaVv' --A_g'nihO,tri,._ __Adv .)
AND:
1. V»E3TivS}i'ddastIétty,,_ %%%%%
_ "S/o1='Puttannashetty,
"*.Aged"abou't .50 years,
.,_T-R/'o.._N,o".5?-:_4'" Stage,
" . TTonaCh'i,:!<op pal Layout,
'--Kanvti'n~a_ra:j Urs Road,
Mysore.
V' Prameela,
'--..W/0. Thyagaraju,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o. No.20S, III Cross,
Raiiway Layout, Main road,
peti»tii-onve'r. V
IN.)
Vijayanagar I Stage,
Mysore -- 16.
.. RESPO,i§i'D_Ei-{TS
These writ petitions are filed under ArticI;és'<?;.2-6: andfi
227 of the Constitution of India, praying tc{ca!ie.,foir ' ,_
entire records and quash the order dated _1.0....1fi,2C)~.1:0i. i.e_., «. "
rejecting the application I.A.Nos.~-Vii-I.yto-_,XI_..a.nd_thereby'
order of issue of arrest warrant vicle iengfiextireg 4-
by the Civil Judge, :1 Addition Mys"oi--e<i.n'Ex.P;ixioi328/.2e.Q'3i._
and thus ailow the above writ' f3_QtitiOi1," "
These petitions coming'V"i'o.n°for prelitrmnartyg hearing
this day, the Court made the Vfo!-io'win'g..:_-- ' V
Sri Keshayg R appearing
for the for sometime,
confines petitions, to the order
passedviggy directing issue of arrest
warrant Vagainisttt " judgment debtor i.e., the
'.;.ittr2.;jf'n«i§ee;:~ondent 1 filed O.S.482/1998 against the
peti--t_ioner~ the 2"" respondent. The suit was for
“””=__”passing-…of a money decree. The suit was decreed on
A ,:.”3V;3..2_.t)O3. The said decree has been put into execution in
_,E>§.Case i\|o.328/2003 to reaiise $64,089/E Petitioner filed
_,_,,_,«-”
5..
I.A.11 in the l~Tx.Case by also mentioning the suit No.
seeking to set aside the compromise decree pasVsedt._Von
3.3.2003 in o.s.482/1998. The other app|_ic’a’tio.r:V:s.:__”ta:.;e”«_
seeking condonation of delay in filing I.A.’1′.1*..–
applications to be not maintainab_V|e,.-the Execut-ionfC_oa;rt
has passed the imbugnedxorder land” as res_g1’|t,_:’§
directed issue of arrest warrantéllagdainst the oetitioyfner.
3. Learned counsel” fDi’._ tl;ie.vl’..p’-etivit.ioner s.ubmits that,
the applications.»having.33–been in the Ex.Case
instead of :jtVh’eVV:”p’etitioner may be
perrnitt’ed’t’to..V.j’i:l»e tihe”applic-ati’on’s”in”§O.S.48Z/1998 and seek
relief. l’
The’-s,u_Vb’rniss’ion made by the learned counsel is
Bynientioning the suit No. as well as Ex.No., the
i”‘ap’pi_iclat§o’ia.s ‘r§I_’ea”e filed in the execution case instead of
filing in..__’the:”original suit. The Ex.Court has held that the
‘. VL'”‘a..policat§ons are not maintainable, which means, only on
th’ec>:<ecution side.
2
S. In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted
to file applications in 08.482/1998 and seek appV.ro.pri.a_te
remedy. Such a course of action is required in;\}iew_’ei’__’tiJe”« _
decision in the case of SYED YUSUFF VS. ‘w
2oo9 KarS10). The dennme ofthe gefinuefisekspropéng
No opinion is expressed on the.___merit.o’f the i.c’l’éi.V{n.._Vn1at3ie in
the appiications.
In the resum,iMJi38895 add 4o493m4o494/2010
stand disposed ;=_eS€ifA\A/if]_TC_?i_:i.ibe§i’Af\}?”_tQV petitioner to take
such a cou;’seio-f in law, keeping in
view the to-b_se~r.\?a.t’io:r3s m:a’de sumfi
Sd/-
JUDGE