Dismissed¶¶35

Smt v. Bhagya v Smt v Dhanalakshmi

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2026WP/50232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Attachment of movables in execution; recall of attachment order rejected; judgment debtor failed to satisfy decree despite sufficient opportunity; decree of 2009, execution proceedings of 2019; Ex.No.1076/2019; OS.No.8025/2004 specific performance decree with costs Rs.1,27,500/- and 6% interest on Rs.1,05,000/-; RFA.No.1297/2009 dismissed confirming decree; writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; City Civil Judge Bengaluru CCH-18; Karnataka High Court; Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil; writ petition rejected as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner/judgment debtor, who failed to satisfy the decree despite sufficient opportunity, the Executing Court was fully justified in dismissing the application seeking recall of the attachment order dated 16.07.2019. ¶¶35

Smt v Bhagya Vs Smt v Dhanalakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28569 W.P. No.50232/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.50232/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. V. BHAGYA W/O MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.Q-2, 3RD CROSS ROAD 3RD MAIN, CHALUKYANAGAR MALLAPPA LAYOUT, NAGARABAVI BENGALURU 560 072.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P. ADV.,)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. V. DHANALAKSHMI W/O A.K. RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.41/8, 2ND STAGE CHANDRA LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU -560 040.

¶13

(BY SRI. S.S. PARIKSHIT, ADV.,)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 24.09.2019 IN EXECUTION NO.1076/2019 ON I.A.NO.2 ON THE FILE OF CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH 18) UNDER ANNEXURE-G & ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28569 W.P. No.50232/2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2019 passed on IA.No.2 in Ex.No.1076/2019 by the City Civil Judge at Bengaluru, CCH-18 (for short ‘the Executing Court’).

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶23

learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶24

The respondent/decree holder has filed OS.No.8025/2004 against the petitioner/judgment debtor seeking relief of specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial Court on 15.09.2009 with costs for a sum of Rs.1,27,500/- and further directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit till the date of realization on Rs.1,05,000/-. The respondent herein has assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Court in regular first appeal in RFA.No.1297/2009 which

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:28569 W.P. No.50232/2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

came to be dismissed on 06.01.2015 by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is to be noticed that the respondent/decree holder initiated execution proceedings in Ex.No.1076/2019 to execute the judgment and decree in OS.No.8025/2004. In the said case, the Executing Court vide order dated 16.07.2019 has ordered attachment of the movables of the judgment debtor. The petitioner/judgment debtor subsequently filed an application seeking recall of the said order of attachment. However, the Executing Court, upon consideration, rejected the said application, which is assailed in this petition.

¶29

It is to be noticed that the suit filed by the respondent was decreed on 15.09.2009 directing the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,500/with interest as stated in the decree. The said decree has attained finality as the appeal filed by the respondent/decree holder was dismissed and thereafter, in execution, the order of attachment of movables was

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28569 W.P. No.50232/2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ordered. The Executing Court, taking note of the lapse on

¶34

the part of the judgment debtor, refused to recall the order of attachment, as the judgment debtor has failed to satisfy the decree despite providing sufficient opportunity. It is further to be noticed that the execution proceedings

¶35

are of the year 2019 and decree is of the year 2009. Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner/judgment debtor, I am of the considered view that the Executing Court was fully justified in dismissing the application filed by the judgment debtor seeking recall of the attachment order dated 16.07.2019. I do not find any error in the impugned order and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected .

¶36

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

¶38

ABK

Smt v. Bhagya v Smt v Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt v. Bhagya v Smt v Dhanalakshmi

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

Smt. Anjinamma Vs Sri. a Doddaiah

Sri. B. S. Nagendra Vs Sri. B. a. Channakeshava

Sri Chikkaveeraiah Vs Smt Kempamma

Smt Rathnamma Vs Smt Meenamma

Smt Saraswathi Vs Sri P Sriramulu

J Prashanth Hegde Vs Dr H Nanjappa