Disposed

Sri. H. B. Mallaiah v. Sri. H. B. Channabasanna

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024WP/8693/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a judgment debtor seeking to quash an order of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC requiring non-compliance with a civil judgment. The court rejected a proposed compromise and directed the petitioner to comply with the decree within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to comply with judgment and decree within four weeks; otherwise, the execution order dated 05.09.2017 will be enforced.

Sri. H. B. Mallaiah Vs Sri. H. B. Channabasanna — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8693 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. H. B. MALLAIAH, S/O. LATE GADI BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GADI BASANNA EXTENSION, HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. H. B. CHANNABASANNA, S/O. LATE GADI BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. GADI BASANNA EXTENSION, HULIYAR ROAD, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. GIREESHA R.J., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2017 PASSED IN EX.PET.NO.27/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HIRIYUR PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.P.No.27/2008 dated 05.09.2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hiriyur, the judgment debtor is before this Court.

¶22

Originally, the respondent herein who is the decree holder, had filed a suit for injunction, restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from putting up construction using the eastern wall of the house and godown and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant not to allow the flow of water on the roof of the house and godown of the defendant towards the suit schedule site of the plaintiff. The said suit came to be decreed on 31.10.2007, whereby the Court below had decreed in part, whereas the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the relief of restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff in putting up construction using the eastern wall of the house and godown of the defendant is dismissed. Then with regard to the other relief of mandatory injunction, the defendant was directed not to leave the water from the roof of his house and godown to flow into the suit schedule property. Aggrieved

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶24

thereby the defendant had filed R.A.No.01/2009 and the same came to be dismissed on 31.10.2012, against that they have preferred RSA.No.479/2018 and the same was dismissed for non prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have already complied with the objections in respect of RSA, but the case status is wrongly showing.

¶25

Thereafter, the execution petition was filed in the year 2008, in that, final order came to be passed on 05.09.2017 wherein the petition filed by the decree holder is allowed and the judgment debtor is directed to take steps to comply with the direction and conditions passed in the judgment and decree in O.S.No.01/2015 within six months from the date of order. The judgment debtor has to stop flow of water from the roof of his house and godown towards the property of the decree holder. If the judgment debtor fails to comply the direction within six from the date of order, he has to go for civil imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by such order the petitioner has come up before this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court on 06.03.2018, had granted stay of operation of the execution of order dated 05.09.2017. The order is extended

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶27

from time to time. When the matter came up on 18.06.2024, this Court had passed an order recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are ready to comply with the judgment and decree and due to some difficulty, they could not comply with the order and if the decree holder permits him to lay a pipeline, they will comply with the order. It is the case of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has never come up with such a suggestion. For the first time, it is stated before this Court and they are also pursuing the RSA. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will come up with an affidavit with regard to the withdrawal and about the compliance of the judgment and decree. Today, when the matter came up, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are ready to comply with the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. However, they have to run a pipeline through the roof of the plaintiff and they will also not pursue the RSA.

¶28

Both the learned counsel for the decree holder and the judgment debtor and the parties are also present. Learned

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶31

counsel for the decree holder submits that it is not acceptable for them to run a pipeline on their roof and further it is submitted that he have an alternative way to do it and they are not ready to forego half feet in their roof.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. In this case, the suit was decreed in the year 2007. Execution was filed in the year 2008 and now, even till 2024, the order of the Court below is not complied with. Now, the defendant has come up with the proposal for compromise, which is not acceptable to the respondent/plaintiff. Hence, this Court has no other option, but to dismiss the present Writ Petition as it is devoid of merits. The judgment and decree as had attained penalty. There is no order passed by this Court in the RSA, which is filed against the concurrent findings of the Court below. The defendants have no option, but to comply with the orders of the Court. If the judgment and decree is not complied with, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the order of the executing the Court will come into play.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:23376 WP No. 8693 of 2018

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. The petitioner shall comply the judgment decree within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶37

ii. Within four weeks if the judgment and decree is not complied the order dated 05.09.2017 will come into play.

¶38

iii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . All the pending I.As are closed.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri. H. B. Mallaiah v. Sri. H. B. Channabasanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. H. B. Mallaiah v. Sri. H. B. Channabasanna

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

T Vishwanatha Vs G B T Geetha

Sri. C. Vikram Vs Smt. B.K. Sowmya

Aijaz Ahmed Siddiqu Vs Modi Nawab @ Modi Ahmed

Mr. M. Vijaya Kumar Vs Smt . Nanjamma

Arvind Kumar Prakash Vs the Commissioner

Smt Eramma @ Radha Vs Sri T Srinivasa