Sri Manjunatha Reddy Vs Smt Gopamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:7479 WP No. 594 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 594 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANJUNATHA REDDY PROPRIETOR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O PAPA REDDY M/S. VINTAGE PROPERTIES NO.14, 1ST FLOOR, 14TH MAIN HSR V SECTOR, OPP. AGARA LAKE BENGALURU-560 034.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SURESH LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHRAVAN S LOKRE.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT GOPAMMA W/O LATE D NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶14

SRI. D. VENKATESH S/O. LATE DYAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶15

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE D NANJAPPA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7479 WP No. 594 of 2025

¶18

ALL ARE RESIDING AT IGGALURU VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION & SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:25.10.2024 PASSED UNDER I.A.NO.3 BY THE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU IN COMM.EX.NO.170/2023 (CCH-85) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 passed on IA No.3 in Com.Ex.No.170/2023 by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-85), Bengaluru. In addition, a prayer is also sought for a direction to restore the

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7479 WP No. 594 of 2025

¶26

registered Joint Development Agreement (for short, ‘JDA’) dated 07.05.2007.

¶27

The respondents/decree-holders have filed

¶28

Execution Petition in Com.Ex.No.170/2023 seeking for execution of the arbitral award in A.C.No.72/2021 disposed of on 13.12.2021. The Executing Court issued notice to the judgment debtor. Since notice was not served, the decree-holders filed a memo before the executing court that hand-summons has been served on the judgment debtor. Also on the basis of the paper publication taken by the decree-holder, the Executing Court has taken service of notice to judgment debtor as sufficient. Thereafter, the decree-holders filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of a Court Commissioner to execute the registered cancellation of JDA by the decree-holders in favour of the judgment debtor dated 07.05.2007.

¶29

Sri Suresh S.Lokre, the leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that only after the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:7479 WP No. 594 of 2025

¶32

cancellation of the JDA, he came to know about the order passed by the Executing Court. Immediately, thereafter, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition and also filed an application for recalling the ex-parte order.

¶33

He further contended that, on the basis of the cancellation of JDA, the decree-holders are alienating the property to third parties and changing the nature of the property. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, if the party creates third party interest, it will affect the rights of both the decree-holders and also judgment debtor. However, the Executing Court has already appointed a Court Commissioner and the Court Commissioner has executed the order and cancelled the JDA executed by the decree-holders in favour of the judgment debtor dated 07.05.2007 and that the executing court has already recalled the ex-parte order and permitted the judgment debtor to appear before the Executing Court. Since the Executing Court has to decide the matter after hearing both the parties, the only relief

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:7479 WP No. 594 of 2025

¶36

that can be granted is to direct the executing court to pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties.

¶37

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶38

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

(ii) The Executing Court is directed to give opportunity to both the parties to file objections, if any, and after hearing both the parties, to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶40

(iii) In case, if the Executing Court dismisses the execution petition, then the executing court is directed to appoint a Commissioner for setting aside the cancellation of the JDA and restore the JDA.

¶41