Dismissed

Shaik Sadiq Vali Son of Abdul Huq v. M/S Margadarshi Chits (Kar) Private Limited

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/100259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner contended that property attached in execution proceedings belonged to him, not the judgment debtor, seeking quashing of the impugned order. Court dismissed petition as petitioner failed to produce title documents. Property remains in judgment debtor's name; no infirmity found in execution.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; attached order against quashing; pending I.A.s. also dismissed.

Shaik Sadiq Vali Son of Abdul Huq Vs M/S… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 100259 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHAIK SADIQ VALI SON OF ABDUL HUQ, AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. BEHIND RTO OFFICER, 6^TH WARD, 6^TH CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, HOSAPETE TALUKA, BALLARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE-581106.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S MARGADARSHI CHITS (KAR) PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HOSAPETE, 2^ND FLOOR, PARWAZ PLAZA, COLLEGE ROAD, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶15

M/S. GURU MEDICAL AND GENERALS REPRESENTED BY G.G. GURU GANDADHAR GUPTA HOSPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶17

MAHBUNNISA BEGUM W/O. K. JAVEED, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶18

G. MAHAMMAD JEELAN S/O. G. MEHABOOB SAB, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶19

M. NANDA KUMAR S/O. M. RAMAIH, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶20

HUSSAIN BASH S/O. MABUSAB, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI, PIN CODE-581106.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADV. FOR R1; R2-PARTY LEFT;

¶23

R3-R5 NOT KNOWN INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS) ---

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the Order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Hosapete produced at ANNEXURE-C.

¶30

II. Issue any other relief/s deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

Respondents No.2 to 5 had borrowed certain monies from respondent No.1, who is in the business of finance. A dispute having been raised before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Chits at Ballari, under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, an award was passed directing respondent No.2 to 5 to make payment of a sum of Rs.34,05,091/-, in furtherance of which, Execution Petition No.27/2018 was filed before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Hosapete.

¶32

In the said proceedings, an application was filed by the decree holder to attach certain properties belonging to respondents No.2 to 5. At that stage, the petitioner filed

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶34

an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the execution proceedings seeking to be impleaded in the proceedings, on the ground that the property belonged to the petitioner and it is a petitioner's property which was being proceeded with under the Execution Petition. The application of the petitioner having been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any document to evidence his title over the property, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order.

¶35

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.01.2024, the petitioner was called upon to produce any document of title in the name of the petitioner, else an adverse inference would be drawn and was adjourned to 18.01.2024. When the petitioner sought for time to produce the document again, the matter being adjourned to 15.02.2024, once again time was sought for and was finally taken up for hearing today i.e., on 14.02.2024.

¶36

Today learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that there is no document of title in the name of the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶38

petitioner, but the submission made is that the petitioner had transferred monies to respondents No.3 and it is from the said monies that respondent No.3 has purchased the property and hence it is claimed that the petitioner is the owner of the property.

¶39

Sri. S. N. Bankar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that, the documents of title are in the name of respondent No.3, who is a borrower, against whom a decree has been passed and it is against said property that the proceedings in the Execution Petition are undertaken and there is no infirmity.

¶40

Heard Sri. Rajashekhar B. Halli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. N. Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the papers.

¶41

Admittedly the documents of title relating the property subject matter of the Execution Petition are in the name of respondent No.3. Though enough and more opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to produce any document of title, no such document has been produced and as such, the claim of the petitioner

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3552 WP No. 100259 of 2022

¶43

that he is the owner of the property has not been evidenced or established by any document, which could be recognized and taken into consideration by this Court.

¶44

The property being in the name of respondent No.3 and one of the judgment debtors being respondent No.3, I find no infirmity in the execution proceedings to attach the property and bring the property for sale. No grounds being made out in the above petition, the petition is dismissed.

¶45

In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending I.A.s., if any, stand dismissed.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

gab ct-mck

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Shaik Sadiq Vali Son of Abdul Huq v. M/S Margadarshi Chits (Kar) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sadiq Vali Son of Abdul Huq v. M/S Margadarshi Chits (Kar) Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mallavva D/O Shivappa Jogayi Vs Shivappa S/O Nagappa Jogayi (Since Dead)

Haji Usmangani Humnabad Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

H. C. Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Hazarth Allauddin Sha Khadri Dargah Vs the Karntaka State Board of Auqaf

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravindra Annu Magadum and Others Vs Smt. Manik Balasheb Bistannavar and Others