Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of a stay application under CPC Order 21 Rule 22 in execution proceedings. Court held that since a Court Commissioner was already appointed for demarcation and fees were directed, no perversity or illegality existed. Petition dismissed.
Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging trial Court order dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
W.P. NO. 4518 OF 2022(GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI VENAKTARAMANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, R/O IMMADIHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARNAV BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI HANUMANTHARAYA D, ADVOCATE)
AND
3 . SMT LAKSHMI @ REKHA D/O V. HOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
2
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O IMMADIHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 036.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T H NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11TH FEBRUARY, 2022 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN FDP NO.30 OF 2018 AT ANNEXURE-B I.A.NO.I ANNEXURE-P AND CONSEQUENTLY PRAYED TO ALLOW THE SAME.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by respondent No.2, in Final Decree Proceedings No.30 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 11.02.2022, dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3
property. The said suit came to be disposed of on 07.02.2012 and feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1, has referred RA No.62 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed in terms of the memo dated 10.08.2018. In the meanwhile, plaintiffs 1 to 3 have preferred Final Decree Proceedings No.30 of 2018 before the trial Court, seeking execution of the decree. In the said Final Decree proceedings, the petitioner herein has filed application under Order 21 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of further proceedings in Misc.No.24 of 2021. The said application was resisted by the respondents herein. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by impugned order dated 11.02.2022, dismissed the application with costs. Feeling aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 in Final Decree Proceedings has preferred this Writ Petition.
4
5
property and also ordered to ascertain the mesne profits during the Final Decree Proceedings. It is not in dispute that said judgment and decree has been questioned in RA No.62 of 2012, and the said Regular Appeal came to be disposed of by the court in terms of memo dated 10.08.2018 filed by the parties in the appeal. In that view of the matter, though the petition has been filed by the parties in Misc. No.24 of 2021, however, looking into the finding recorded by the trial Court, it reveals that Court Commissioner has already been appointed by the trial Court for demarcation and to submit the report in Final Decree Proceedings and further, the trial Court has directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs.5,000/- as Commissioner’s fee before ADLR and in that view of the matter, there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow a Writ Petition under Article 227 quashing the order dismissing an application for stay under CPC Order 21 Rule 22.
Whether the appointment of a Court Commissioner and direction to deposit Commissioner's fee renders the order perverse or illegal requiring Writ Court intervention.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Venaktaramanappa S/O Late Venkatappa
Smt Hemavathi D/O V Hombegowda
Sri Maruthi S/O V.Hombegowda
Smt Lakshmi @ Rekha D/O V. Hombegowda
Sri V Hombegowda S/O Late Venkatappa
E.S. Indires
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
