Disposed¶70

Mohammed Ali Sab v. Amanulla

Karnataka HC21 Feb 2025RP/27/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Section 114 CPC; Section 54 CPC; Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC; Deputy Commissioner as executing authority; court-appointed Commissioner; Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018; Mahazar dated 30.06.2018; Execution No. 33/2017; WP No. 45565/2018; WP Nos. 52879-52882/2018; decree holders; review of writ judgment; Karnataka High Court; Krishna S Dixit; review petition disposed off; unrepresented respondents.

What did the court decide?

The Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018 is already executed by drawing the Mahazar dated 30.06.2018; nothing more needs to be done, and on this observation the review petition is disposed off (i.e., the prayer to recall the 18.09.2019 order judgment does not result in any further action). ¶69

Mohammed Ali Sab Vs Amanulla — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the order/judgment dated 18.09.2019 in WP No. 45565/2018 and WP Nos. 52879 to 52882/2018 ought to be reviewed/recalled, given that the proceedings at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner under Sec.54 CPC were already accomplished and the Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018 (Annexures-C & D) was only a further step in aid of Execution No. 33/2017.

¶65

Court's answer

¶69

Key takeaways

Despite service of notice, the respondents chose to remain unrepresented; however, that would not deter the court from adjudicating the case brought before it in accordance with law.obiter¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Krishna S Dixit, J.), by oral order dated 21.02.2025, disposed of Review Petition No. 27 of 2020 filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC seeking review of the order dated 18.09.2019 in WP No. 45565/2018 and WP Nos. 52879 to 52882/2018. The reviewed judgment had disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the court below to entrust the subject matter to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner instead of the Commissioner appointed by the Court (Section 54 CPC being contended to be an exception to Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC), with execution to be accomplished without brooking delay. The review petitioners argued there was no occasion to void Annexures-C & D, the Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018, since the Deputy Commissioner's proceedings under Sec.54 CPC, 1908 were already accomplished and the warrant was only a further step in aid of Execution No. 33/2017. Respondents remained unrepresented despite notice, but the Court proceeded to adjudicate. Observing that the Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018 stood already executed by drawing the Mahazar dated 30.06.2018 and that 'nothing more needs to be done', the Court disposed off the review petition.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 27 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1.MOHAMMED ALI SAB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS,

¶9

1(A). SHABBIR SAB S/O MOHAMMED ALI SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT BANASHANKARI STREET, DODAPETE, KADUR TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJA SUBRAHMANYA BHAT B.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AMANULLA, S/O ABDUL SHABHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶15

YUNUS S/O ABDUL SUBHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶16

NO.1 & 3 ARE R/O GOWRAPURA, AJJAMPURA TOWN, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 528.

¶17

SMT. SHAMEEMUNNISA, D/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O ALADA MARAKUNLUME, MARANAVANI BYLU, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶20

SMT. FAIZUNNISA, D/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O C/O NOOR MOHAMMED SDC GOVT HOSPITAL, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.

¶21

SMT. SUFIYA BI, W/O LATE ALEEMULA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.

¶22

GHOUSE S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI SAB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANASHANKARI STREET, DODDAPETE KADUR TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.

¶23

SMT. RAZIYA D/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI SAB, W/O DASTAGIR SAB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O BEHIND URDU SCHOOL, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 548.

¶24

SADIYA D/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI SAB, W/O MOHAMMED SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O SHARIFF STREET, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 548.

¶25

GHOUSE SHARIFF S/O LATE IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O URBANI VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE -577 001.

¶26

ABDUL JALEEL S/O LATE IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE,

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶28

AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶29

AKBAR ALI S/O LATE IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶30

TAYAR SHARIFF S/O LATE IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶31

MAHABOOB BEE D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O GHOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O KALEHALLI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIEKRE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 228.

¶32

FATHIMABI D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O VALISAB, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶33

TAHEERA D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O BHAILAL SAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶34

AZMATHUNNISSA D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O GHOUSE SAB, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶37

FAIZUNNISA D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O JAFFER SAB, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O JAFFER SAB, HEAD MASTER GOVT. URDU SCHOOL, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 228.

¶38

KHAMUNNISA D/O LATE IMAM SAB, W/O INAMULLA SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶39

SHAFFIULLA S/O ABDUL SUBHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶40

MAJEEEBULLA S/O NAZEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BUSINESS

¶41

MUHEEBULLA S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DRIVER,

¶42

MUKHTHIAR AHAMED S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, DRIVER,

¶43

AZMATHULLA S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DRIVER,

¶44

IRSHAD S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BUSINESS,

¶45

SAGABATHULLA S/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BUSINESS,

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶47

18 TO 25 ARE RESIDENTS OF GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶48

NOOR JAHAN D/O NAZEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SCHOOL TEACHER, R/O BUKKAMBOODI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 228.

¶49

ATTEEQH S/O SHOUKATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶50

YASEEN S/O SHOUKATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, BOTH R27 & R28 ARE LORRY OWNERS R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶51

NURULLA S/O ABDULLA SUBHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O GOWRAPURA VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577 228.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI.MUNIYAPPA C R GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 TO R18 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.C.O DATED 04/02/2020 NOTICE TO R29 IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O DATED 17.03.2021)

¶54

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 18/09/2019 PASSED IN WP NO. 45565/2018 AND WP NO. 52879 TO 52882/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶55

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶56

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

The subject writ petition was disposed off by this court vide judgment dated 18.09.2019 wherein paras 2 & 3 read as under:

¶61

“2. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that, Section 54 of CPC as amended, being an exception to Order XXVI Rule 13 of CPC, no person other than the Deputy Commissioner (who is a persona designate u/s 54) could have been appointed as the Court Commissioner at the instance of Decree Holders.

¶62

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers and having dispensed with notice to other side, because of innocuous nature of relief, these Writ Petitions are disposed off with a direction to the court below to entrust the subject matter to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner instead of Commissioner appointed by the Court.

¶63

Execution proceedings shall be accomplished without brooking delay.”

¶64

Learned counsel appearing for the review

¶65

petitioners submits that there was no occasion for this court for voiding Annexures-C & D namely the Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018 inasmuch as the proceedings at the hands of Deputy Commissioner in terms of Sec.54 of

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:7902 RP No. 27 of 2020

¶68

CPC, 1908 were already accomplished and that the delivery warrant is only a further step in aid of Execution No.33/2017 and therefore the order judgement to be recalled. Despite service of notice, respondents have chosen to remain unrepresented. However, that would not deter the court from adjudicating the case brought before it in accordance with law.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. It is noted that the Delivery Warrant dated 13.06.2018 is already executed by drawing Mahazar dated 30.06.2018. Nothing more needs to be done.

¶70

With the above observations, the review petition is disposed off.

¶71

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶72

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Mohammed Ali Sab v. Amanulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali Sab v. Amanulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Vasanth Kumar. M Vs Karnataka State Human Rights Commission

Sri S Prasanna Vs Smt Nanjamma

M/S Rudramuni Consultants Vs State of Karnataka

J Janardhan Vs State of Karnataka