Smt D R Poornima Vs Smt. Leelamma

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3065 WP No. 31559 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.31559 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. D.R. POORNIMA W/O M.P. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.2356, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571 401, REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI. M.P. NAGESH S/O LATE PADMANATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2356, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571 401.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. LEELAMMA W/O. LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 100 FEET ROAD, NEAR VIJAYA BANK, ( BANK OF BARODA) OPPOSITE HDFC BANK, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571 401.

¶14

SRI. C. MAHADEVU, S/O CHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:3065 WP No. 31559 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

R/AT. NO.1637, 3^RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571 401.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.M.SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2;

¶21

R.1: NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT

¶22

ORDER DATED 02.12.2024)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 07.11.2024 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.44/2024 ON IA NO.3/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURE-J, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition by the decree holder is directed against the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya in Ex.No.44/2024.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner instituted the aforesaid execution proceedings in Ex.No.44/2024 against

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:3065 WP No. 31559 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

respondent No.1/judgment debtor to enforce the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2024 passed in HRC No.4/2018. During the pendency of the proceedings, respondent No.2 filed an application (I.A.No.3) under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC seeking to implead himself as an obstructor/objector to the execution proceedings. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner/decree holder, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned order which reads as under:

¶34

" ORDERS

¶35

On the last date of hearing both side to hear heard on IA.No.III under order 21 rule 97 R/W/Sec.151 of CPC. This court perusal the pleadings and documents filed by the both parties at this time this court opinion that, before passing any order on IA.No.III it is to be necessary to give opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence through enquiry as per law. Hence the case is posted for enquiry.

¶36

Call on 23/11."

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2/objector/obstructor had not placed any material to establish that he had independent right over the execution schedule property and no documents in this regard were produced by respondent no.2 and as such, the Executing Court committed an error in directing an enquiry to be conducted in the matter.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3065 WP No. 31559 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

¶41

no.2/objector/obstructor submits that in addition to the documents already produced by respondent no.2, respondent no.2 would produce additional documents in support of his claim before the Executing Court and the impugned order passed by the trial court may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in order to provide an opportunity to both sides to produce material/documents in support of their respective claims, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 in accordance with law by providing an opportunity to both the parties.

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya in Ex.No.44/2024 is hereby set aside;

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:3065 WP No. 31559 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶51

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both sides to produce the documents/material in support of their respective claims;

¶52

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.

¶53

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶54

hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt D R Poornima v. Smt. Leelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D R Poornima v. Smt. Leelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a B Nagaraju Vs Smt Ramakka

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Sri Siddalingaswamy

Smt Sudha K R Vs Chandrashekar

Smt. Sarasamma Vs Sri D Narayanaswamy

Mrs M Gayathri Vs Sri Vasant Shamarao Kulkarni

Star India Private Limited Vs Kannada Film Producers Association