Dismissed

R. Krishnamurthy, v. Veeramma

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/8832/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree holder challenged the Executing Court's order allowing objectors' application under Section 151 CPC and objection under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC in an execution petition arising from a compromised specific performance suit. The High Court held such an order is a decree under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, granting liberty to appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

R. Krishnamurthy, Vs Veeramma — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8832 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

R. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, SREE RANGA NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, I MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA NAGARA, TUMAKURU TOWN.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIABHAV R.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

VEERAMMA, D/O LINGAPPA W/O LATE CHIKKERAIAH AGED 68 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

L. SIDDAGANGAMMA D/O LINGAPPA W/O BOMMALINGANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶14

RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572107.

¶15

PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE VEERANNA

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶17

GIRISH

¶18

S/O PARVATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶19

LINGAPPA BROTHER OF LATE VEERANNA MAJOR,

¶20

CHKKA VEERAMMA W/O SRI. LINGAPPA AGED 73 YEARS,

¶21

L. SHIVARUDRAIAH S/O SRI. LINGAPPA AGED 48 YEARS

¶22

UMADEVI W/O L. SHIVARUDRAIAH AGE: 43 YEARS

¶23

B. SHIVAPRASAD S/O L. SHIVARUDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS NO.3-9 ARE RESIDING AT B.G.PALYA, SOREKUNTE, MAJARE, BELLARI HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK-572107.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶27

VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 9 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON I.A UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CPC AND OBJECTION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97 OF THE CPC ALLOWING BY ITS ORDER DATED 15.10.2022 IN EX.NO.42/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶30

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question an order dated 15.10.2022 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Tumakuru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Executing Court’) in Ex. No.42/2011 by which an interlocutory application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC were allowed.

¶35

The petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance which came to be compromised and an execution petition in Ex. No.42/2011 was filed to execute the decree. Smt. Veeramma and Smt. L. Siddagangamma, the daughters of one of the judgment debtor - Sri Lingappa filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to come on record as objectors in the said execution petition and filed

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶38

objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC., to the execution petition. The Executing Court recorded the evidence of one of the objectors – Smt. Veeramma as PW.1 and she marked documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The decree holder did not lead any evidence. However, he marked Ex.D1 through PW.1. The Executing Court after considering the material on record, allowed the application filed under Section 151 of CPC and objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC in terms of the impugned order.

¶39

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit properties were the self acquisition of the judgment debtors and therefore, the objectors had no right to contest the execution petition on the premise that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of the judgment debtors.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the objectors /

¶42

respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the impugned order passed on the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC., is a

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶44

decree as provided under Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC., and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶46

A perusal of the impugned order shows that it was an order passed on an application filed under Section 151 of CPC and objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. Under Order XXI Rule 103 of CPC., any adjudication of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC is deemed to be a decree and the Rules applicable to appeals against such decree have to be resorted to if the impugned order has to be challenged.

¶47

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the Executing Court in an appropriate appeal. The time consumed in pursuing this petition shall be deducted while calculating limitation applicable to such an appeal. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:41903 WP No. 8832 of 2023

¶49

¶50

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the

¶51

impugned order after retaining a photocopy of the same.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71

¶56

SMA

R. Krishnamurthy, v. Veeramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R. Krishnamurthy, v. Veeramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Krishnavathi Vs Mrs. Premavathy

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri. Lakshmaiah Reddy

Sri C Manju Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri Venkataswamy Reddy Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Jagannath v. Pai Vs Sri. Munishamappa

Sri Naveen H Kalra Vs Mr. Sanjay Bajli