Disposed

Sri H S Kalleshappa v. Sri H P Veerabhadrappa

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/3850/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 sought direction to dispose of pending interim applications (stay and condonation of delay) in the first appeal. The High Court directed the first appellate court to decide these applications by 26.04.2024, keeping execution proceedings in abeyance during that period.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the first appellate court to consider and pass orders on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 in R.A. No. 82/2023 by 26.04.2024. Execution proceedings in No. 116/2016 were ordered to remain in ab

Sri H S Kalleshappa Vs Sri H P Veerabhadrappa — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3850 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI H S KALLESHAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O HOGAREHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶7

SRI. H.S. RAJAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O HOGAREHALLI VILLAGE AND POST BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶8

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI H.S. MOKSHANATHA S/O SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O HOGAREHALLI VILLAGEAND POST BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR SHASHTRI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SAGAR V SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI H P VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/O HOGAREHALLI VILLAGE AND POST

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶16

BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶17

SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O MURTHAPPA D/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/AT YARALAGHATTA VILLAGE SINGATAGERE HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 138.

¶18

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA D/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O DOMBARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶19

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O SHEKARAPPA D/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O KUDLUR VILLAGE AND POST TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶20

SMT. SIDDAMMA SINCE DECESED BY HER LRS

¶21

SMT. REKHA, D/O LATE SIDDAMMA W/O KALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O DOMBARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶22

SMT. VEENA D/O LATE SIDDAMMA W/O S.L. NAIKA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶25

R/O DOMBARANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.

¶26

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA D/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O HIREMAGALUR VILLAGE CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 102.

¶27

SMT. NEELAMMA @ LEELAVATHI W/O YOGISH, D/O ERANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O HOGAREHALLI VILLAGE & POST BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 116.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 6.3.2024)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO. II IN R.A NO. 82/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR AS PER ANNEXURE-L AND ALLOW IA NO. II FILED IN RA NO. 82/2023 AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This petition by the appellants in R.A. No. 82/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, whereby the first appellate Court declined to grant an order of stay and issued notice on I.A. No. 2 filed by the petitioners – appellants under Order 39 Rule 5 CPC seeking stay.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶36

Heard learned Senior counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

¶37

Learned Senior counsel for petitioners submits that the first appellate Court committed an error in not passing an order on I.A.No. 1 for stay and on I.A. No. 2 for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners as a result of which the Executing Court directed issuance of delivery warrant in execution No. 116/2016 by passing the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 which is also assailed in the present petition. It is submitted that if the first appellate Court does not pass any orders on the applications, I.A. Nos. 1 and 2, the appeal would be rendered infructuous and as such it is necessary to direct the first appellate Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 as expeditiously as possible and to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance till such orders being passed.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 invited my attention to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 492/2023 dated 13.06.2023 filed by the petitioners in which they

¶39

were reserved liberty to file an appeal against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed on I.A. No. 3 in execution No. 116/2023 which

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶41

was permitted by this Court. It is submitted that though this Court merely permitted the petitioners to challenge the said order, the petitioners have not challenged the said order and instead challenged the original judgment and decree dated 21.06.2016 after delay of more than 7-½ years and the first appellate Court was fully justified in not condoning the delay by passing the impugned order. It is also submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be rejected.

¶42

Though several contentions are raised in support of the respective claims as regards maintainability of the appeal and condonation of delay, it is an undisputed fact that I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed in R.A. No. 82/2023 are still pending adjudication before the first appellate Court. Under these facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the first appellate Court to consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed in R.A. No. 82/2023 on or before 26.04.2024 after providing an opportunity to both the parties to put forth their respective claims. It is further directed that till disposal of I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed in R.A. No. 82/2023, proceedings in execution No. 116/2016 shall remain in abeyance. It is needless to say that in the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:10496 WP No. 3850 of 2024

¶45

event I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed by the first appellate Court, the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed in execution No. 116/2016 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur, shall be given effect to by the Executing Court.

¶46

With the above observations, petition stands disposed off.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

LRS

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri H S Kalleshappa v. Sri H P Veerabhadrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Kalleshappa v. Sri H P Veerabhadrappa

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

Mr Sunil Kumar Nahar Vs M/S Melange

P. Hanumantha Raju Vs Smt. Kalamma

Bangalore Baptist Church Vs Charles Isaac

Sri Medehal Reddy Basavaraja Goud, Vs Mr. Bollimekala Chandrasekhar

Sri K T Prakash Vs Sri Prasanna Kumara K P

Dakshayeni a N Vs Mohan R