Dismissed

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Jayamma

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/4853/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by judgment debtors challenging the Additional Senior Civil Judge's order allowing a respondent brought on record as an additional decree holder. The High Court held that interference was not warranted as the respondent was a party to the decree and no failure of justice occurred.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed me the impugned order allowing the additional decree holder impleadment in Ex.Case 7/2021 cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice and is dismissed.

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Jayamma — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4853 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE S.V. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE S.V. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE S.V. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE S.V. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. NALINA D/O LATE S.V. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. S.M. VEERANNA GOWDA S/O LATE S V MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶15

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU -560089.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. YUGANDHAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶19

AND:

¶20

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE S.V. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶21

SRI. S.P. VEERANNA GOWDA S/O LATE S.V. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶22

SMT. LINGAMMA W/O SRI. S.P. VEERANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶23

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 560089.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A HEREIN PASSED IN EX. CASE. NO.7/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE ON IA NO. II.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition by the Judgment Debtors in Ex.Case.No.7/2021

¶30

on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 whereby the said application filed by respondent No.3 to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶33

come on record as additional decree holder, was allowed by the Trial Court.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the first instance, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 instituted a suit in O.S.No.1781/2008 before the Trial Court for declaration, possession, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The petitioners were defendants in the said suit. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein preferred an appeal in RA.No.230/2020 which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, the petitioners herein preferred second appeal in RSA.No.270/2022 before this Court. During the pendency of the said RSA No.270/2022, the respondent No.3 – Smt.Lingamma, herein got herself impleaded as additional respondent No.3 in RSA No.270/2022 on the ground that the respondents Nos.1 & 2 had

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶37

executed a Registered Lease Deed dated 23.04.2012 in her favour. After hearing the parties, this Court permitted impleadment of respondent No.3 and permitted her to come on record as respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.10.2022 passed in RSA.No.270/2022.

¶38

After the respondent No.3 got herself impleaded as respondent No.3 in RSA.No.270/2022, this Court took up the second appeal for hearing and vide final judgment and decree dated 09.12.2022, this Court dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and this Court petitioners herein approached the Apex Court in SLP.Diary.No.53271/2023 which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2024. In this context, it is relevant to state that respondent No.3 herein was arrayed as party respondent before the Apex Court also by the petitioners herein.

¶39

Subsequently, the respondent No.3 herein filed the instant application seeking to come on record as an additional decree holder No.3 in the instant Ex.C.No.7/2021 on the ground that the virtue of Order 22 Rule 10, CPC and the respondent No.3 having

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶41

been impleaded as a party respondent No.3 in RSA No.270/2022 as well as before the Apex Court, the respondent No.3 was entitled to continue the Executing proceedings as decree holder No.3. By the impugned order, the Executing Court allowed I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent No.3 and permitted her to come on record as additional decree holder No.3 to the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 allowing the respondent No.3 to be impleaded as additional decree holder No.3, the petitioner-judgment debtors are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶42

A perusal of the undisputed material on record will indicate that the judgment and decrees passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.1781/2008 and RA.No.230/2020 stood merged with the judgment and decree of this Court in RSA.No.270/2022 dated 09.12.2022. it is also an undisputed fact that the respondent No.3 is a party to the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by this Court. It is needless to state that it is this judgment and decree passed by this Court which is sought to be implemented and enforced in the execution proceedings. Further, the petitioners themselves have impleaded the respondent No.3 as a party in the

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11229 WP No. 4853 of 2024

¶44

SLP before the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, merely because an opportunity to file objections to I.A.No.2 was not provided in favour of the petitioners, in the light of the undisputed material on record including the respondent No.3 being a party to RSA No.270/2022 and SLP.Diary.No.53271/2023, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.2 by passing the impugned order which cannot be said to have occasioned failure of justice warranting interference in the present petition.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs.

¶46

Chhabi Nath reported in ( 2015) 5 SCC 423.

¶47

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

¶48

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

¶49

SD/JUDGE

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Jayamma

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

M/S Coffee Day Global Ltd. Vs M/S Sundarya Graphics

Smt B a Rajeshwari Vs Smt. Gowramma

Mr Syed Zahid Ali Vs M/s. Ganapathi Vishnu Lakshmi

M/S Mondo Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S N D Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri C N Mohan Vs Shri N Mare Gowda

Smt. Renuka Seshadri Vs Smt. Shobha Prabhakar