Disposed

Kumari M v. Bhumika v Smt B H Krishnaveni

Karnataka HC11 Sept 2020WP/14026/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. The court held that since the application was dismissed without adjudication on merits, it does not act as res judicata, allowing the petitioner to file another application under Order 22 Rule 12 CPC in the executing court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appropriate application under Order 22 Rule 12 CPC before the Executing Court.

Kumari M v Bhumika Vs Smt B H Krishnaveni — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

¶3

BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14026 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KUMARI M.V.BHUMIKA AGE 16 YEARS D/O SRI M.P.VEERABHADREGOWDA MELAHALLI VILLAGE RAVANDUR HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 570 001 REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER SRI M.P.VEERABHADREGOWDA MAJOR, ... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT.B.H.KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE HEGGADE GOWDA AGED 48 YEARS R/AT BERNAGODE VILLAGE AVATHI HOBLI JENUGADDE POST CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 101

¶13

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR KADUR TALUK OFFICE, KADUR CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 101

¶15

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA POST BOX NO.5320, MAIN BUILDING, RESIDENCY PARK ROAD BANGALORE – 560 002

¶16

THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KGID BUILDING, NEAR JILLA PANCHAYAT OFFICE K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R-2 & 3, R-4 SERVED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE – G DATED 05.01.2015 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN EX.NO.205/2013 BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUNSUR, SITTING AT PERIYAPATNA.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard.

This writ petition came to be filed challenging Annexure-G wherein the application under Order 22 Rule 3 filed by the alleged legatee of the original decreeholder Smt.Ningamma has been dismissed. The reason assigned by the learned trial Judge while dismissing the said application is that the application is not filed under the proper provision of law. The learned trial Judge while dismissing the application has noted that as per Rule 12 of Order 22, nothing contained in Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to the proceedings in an execution. Mere wrong quoting of provision of law would not debar the Court to appreciate the relevant facts and then exercising inherent power vested in the Court and dispose of the application on merits.

¶24

In the impugned order, such a course is not taken

¶25

to by the trial Court. Nevertheless there is no bar for the writ petitioner to file another application under Order 22

¶26

¶27

Rule 12 of CPC. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if such an application is now filed before Executing Court, there may be a technical objection that an application under Order 22 Rule 3 is already dismissed and it would act as a constructive res judicata. On a perusal of dismissal of application under Order 22 Rule 12 of CPC vide Annexure-G, it is noticed that there was no adjudication on merits on the application. Therefore, per se it would not prevent the writ petitioner to file appropriate application before Executing Court. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

All other contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before Executing Court as well as before the Court wherein P & SC No.1/2008 is pending between the parties.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

bnv*

Kumari M v. Bhumika v Smt B H Krishnaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari M v. Bhumika v Smt B H Krishnaveni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahesha R @ Ammu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinidhi S Ramaswamy Vs Lakshmi

Sri G Venkatesh Vs Smt. G Rojamma

Smt Susheela Vs Smt Ratna

Sri. T. M. Ravikumar Vs Sri. N. Shivanand

Sri Chetan R Lokande Vs Smt Sushma J