Dismissed¶37

Mr Yalavarthi Dilip Raju @ Dilli Babu v. Mrs Chatakondu Subba Rathnamma

Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 227 – Execution

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2025WP/52163/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (GM-CPC) dismissed; attachment warrant in execution of ex parte decree upheld; alternative remedy to move the decree-passing court to set aside ex parte judgment and decree; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; O.S.No.118/2016 Additional Senior Civil Judge Rajampet; decree dated 31.08.2017 for Rs.6,24,000; execution transferred from Rajampet to City Civil Court Bengaluru; Ex.Case No.3231; attachment of movables executed 16.12.2018; no interference under writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and all interlocutory applications therein were ordered to stand closed. ¶37

Mr Yalavarthi Dilip Raju @ Dilli Babu Vs Mrs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 52163 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. YALAVARTHI DILIP RAJU @ DILLI BABU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF SRI. GOPAL RAJU, R/AT H.NO.30-B, 2^ND FLOOR, SONAPPA BADAVANE, 3^RD CROSS, VARMA LAYOUT, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 024.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SUNITHA H SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by MEGHA MRS. CHATAKONDU SUBBA RATHNAMMA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Location: WIFE OF SRI. NARASIMHA RAO HIGH COURT OF RESIDING AT LAKSHMIPALEM VILLAGE, KARNATAKA ANANTHARAJAPURAM POST, BADVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. SADANAND G SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ATTACHMENT ORDER PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 ON DATED

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶17

16.11.2017 PASSED IN EX 3231 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH 40 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BANGALORE AND GRANT THE PETITIONER SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2017 passed in Ex.Case No.3231/2017 by the City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City, whereby the Court had issued a warrant for attachment of immovable properties, the petitioner/judgement debtor is before this Court.

¶22

The facts of the case are that the respondent herein

¶23

had filed O.S.No.118/2016 for recovery of money before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Andhra Pradesh. In that, an exparte judgement and decree was passed on 31.08.2017, whereby the defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,24,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand only). Thereafter, the Execution Petition is filed

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶26

before Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Rajampet and sought for transfer of the said decree as the petitioner is residing at Bengaluru and the schedule property comes within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The Court at Rajampet has transferred the Execution Petition from Rajampet to Bengaluru. It is the case of the judgement debtor that he has no knowledge about the judgement and decree that is passed by the Courts at Andhra Pradesh. It is the case that the petitioner/judgement debtor has no financial transaction with the decree holder and he came to know about the decree only when he received the notice. It is stated that the Court by the order impugned, has issued a warrant of attachment without even issuing notice to the petitioner. On 16.12.2018, the decree holder has executed the attachment of movables and has attached property belonging to the petitioner. Then he has appeared before the Executing Court and sought time for filing objections.

¶27

petitioner/judgment debtor submits that the Court ought to have granted a reasonable time and ought not to have passed an attachment order when the judgement and decree is an

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶30

exparte decree. As the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru, he is not aware of any of the pending proceedings before the Courts at Andhra Pradesh. He submits that the Court without considering all these aspects has issued the attachment warrant and the same is liable to be set aside by giving reasonable time to the judgment debtor to contest the matter before the Courts at Andhra Pradesh.

¶31

respondent/decree holder submits that a judgment and decree was passed on 31.08.2017, even till now, the decree holder could not realise the fruits of the decree. He submits that so far no steps have been taken by the judgement debtor to file an application before the Courts at Andhra Pradesh seeking to set aside the exparte judgement and decree and instead of going before the Court, the petitioner has come up before this Court and obtained stay of all further proceedings. It is submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner is aware of an

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶35

exparte judgment and decree. According to the petitioner/ judgment debtor, when the attachment order is passed by the Court that is in the year 2019, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that even till now, they have not filed any application to set aside the exparte judgement and decree. When an exparte judgment and decree is passed by the Court, the proper course that is available to the party is to file an application to set aside the judgement and decree. Admittedly, in this case no such exercise is done by the petitioner/judgement debtor and he could successfully stall the proceedings and the decree holder could not execute the decree from 2018, in view of the stay order passed by this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy that is available to the petitioner is not to approach this Court but to approach the Court which has passed an exparte judgement and decree. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:4834 WP No. 52163 of 2019

¶40

(ii) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶41

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶42