IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.28092 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) AND WRIT PETITION Nos.29203-29205/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. DARPAN A JAIN W/O AMIT R JAIN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. R CHANCHAL W/O RIKABCHAND JAIN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT NO.401 PANCHASHEEL APARTMENTS 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 009.
3. SMT ANITA P RANKA W/O PRAVEEN RANKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1103/1104 11TH FLOOR, RAJ MANNOR ‘B’ WING, OPPOSITE NAVY COLONY LIBERTY GARDEN, MALAD WEST, MUMBAI PETITIONER NOS.1 & 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI AMIT R JAIN S/O RIKABCHAND JAIN RESIDING AT NO.401 PANCHASHEEL APARTMENTS 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560009 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.J.KARIGAR FOR SRI D.N. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATES) AND:
SRI. GOPALA B S/O. SRI BUDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT BYCHAPURA ANNESHWARA POST BANGALORE RURAL DISTIRCT … RESPONDENT THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY WAY OF A DIRECTIONS TO THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL COURT, CCH-68, BANGALORE IN EX.NO.3165/2016 TO DISPOSE OFF ALL PENDING APPLICATIONS AND PROCEED WITH THE EXECUTION PETITION AND DISPOSE OF THE MATTER AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE WITHIN A TIME FRAME WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ASPER ANNX-D, D2 & D4 & E.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the decree holders in Ex.No.3165/2016, wherein the respondent happens to be the judgment debtor, are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court for a direction to the learned Judge of the Executing Court to try and dispose off the said Execution Case in a time bound manner.
2. Since the prayer made in the writ petition is innocuous, notice to respondent/judgment debtor is dispensed with since he will have an opportunity of contesting the Execution Petition when the same is taken up for consideration.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers, this court grants indulgence in the matter.
4. The suit of the petitioners in O.S.No.683/2009 for a money decree having been amicably settled, the Lok Adalat having passed the decree in terms of Joint Memo dated 10.03.2015, the petitioners have filed the Execution Case No.3165/2016; since filing of the suit about ten years have lapsed; the Joint Memo reporting settlement itself was filed on 10.03.2015 and thus, more than four years have lapsed since the settlement has been arrived at; despite long run of the time, the petitioners are not in a position to enjoy the usufructs of bona fide litigation; this is not a happy affair; all endeavors need to be made by the learned Judge of the Executing Court; otherwise, the confidence of the successful litigants could be shaken in the judicial process.
5. The Apex Court in the case of K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon Vs. C.D.Shaji, (2012) 2 SCC 51 has held that the Lok Adalat can pass a decree even in a matter arising from a criminal case of cheque bouncing under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by virtue of deeming provisions enacted in section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; thus, possibly there is no faltering of the Lok Adalat award;
6. The Privy Council more than a century and a half ago had ridiculed our judicial system in the case of THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RAJ DURBHANGA VS. MAHARAJAH COOMAR RAMAPUT SINGH IN MOORE’S INDIAN APPEALS (1871-72), VOL.14, PAGE 605 = 17 W.R.459 in the following words:
“These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree….”
In the above circumstance, these writ petitions succeed in part; the executing Court is directed to consider and dispose off the petitioners’ Execution Case No.3165/2016 in accordance with law after hearing both the stakeholders, within an outer limit of nine months and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.
While computing the period of nine months, the adjournment if taken hereafter by the petitioners’ side shall be excluded; all contentions are kept open.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY