IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.191 OF 2017 BETWEEN G.K.MAYIGAIAH, S/O KARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O GAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 401. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.P.C.SUNITHA, ADVOCATE) AND MANDYA ZILLA KURUBARA SANGHA ®, MANDYA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.C.ROAD, OPP. TO KEB OFFICE, MANDYA CITY – 571 401. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2017 PASSED IN EX NO.306/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MANDYA, REJECTING THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN REGARDING THE REPORT OF THE COURT BAILIFF AND ACCORDINGLY CLOSING THE EXECUTION CASE.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner-decree holder is in revision petition, challenging the order dated 04-3-2017, by which the execution petition is closed. The petitioner filed execution No.306/2012 praying to execute the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.115/2004. The decree put into execution reads as follows:
“It is ordered and decreed that the appeal filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.48/1992 is set aside. The suit in O.S.No.48/92 is decreed. The defendant, his servants are hereby restrained from interfering with the peace full possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff by granting perpetual injunction. The defendant sangha is hereby directed to demolish the compound constructed on the northern side of the suit schedule property by granting a mandatory injunction with in three months from the date of this order, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to demolish the said compound at the cost of the defendant sangha. The parties are directed to bear their own cost.”
2. The schedule of the property reads as follows:
“A site situated at Mandya city bearing Old Sy. No. 149/1A15, converted the same as site in alienation No.3/90-91, assessed at 0.20 paise bounded on east by remaining land of H.
Karigowda in the same Sy.No., West by lands of Cauveri Nanjegowda and others south by site of defendant within this area measures 4 guntas of lands and north by land of Boraiah.”
3. In the execution, the executing court ordered to demolish the compound wall as per the decree on the northern side of the suit schedule property through police help and to file the report regarding execution of the decree, demolishing the compound wall on the northern side. But the decree holder filed objection stating that as per the decree the Judgment Debtor has to demolish compound wall to an extent of 120 ft on the northern side of the suit schedule property but only demolished to an extent of 40 ft. Therefore, the trial Court by order dated 25-6-2016 directed the decree holder to produce proper documents regarding the extent of compound wall need to be demolished as per the decree. As the decree holder failed to place on record any document indicating the extent of compound wall, the executing court closed the decree as per the report of the bailiff. Aggrieved by the same, the decree holder is before this Court in this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree which is put into execution with regard to the land and the compound wall which is on the northern side is demolished only to an extent of 40 ft and not to an extent of 120 ft. Further she submits that the objection filed by the decree holder is not considered by the executing court. In the objection, it is stated that the compound wall is to be demolished from east to west 120 ft and Ameen has not put into execution the decree in respect of entire suit schedule property.
5. On going through the entire order sheet of execution proceedings which is placed on record, it is seen that the executing court ordered to demolish the compound wall as per the schedule to the decree, which is put into execution. The Court Ameen who filed report stated that the compound wall to the northern side was demolished. But the decree holder filed objection stating that the entire extent is not demolished. But failed to place on record any document to show that the wall measures 120 ft on northern side.
6. The executing court specifically by order dated 25-6-2016 ordered decree holder to place on record proper document to show that the compound wall measures 120 ft. But the decree holder failed to place on record any document to indicate that the northern side wall measures 120 ft. As the decree holder failed to place on record any document to indicate the measurement of northern side compound wall, the executing court having no other option closed the execution proceedings. Thus, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the order passed by the executing court.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ