IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION No.36993/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O. MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O. LATE D. RAMU, THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED DEFENDANT R/AT MATAGALLI, D.NO.26, MYSORE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: KESHAV R. AGNIHOTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SUNDER S/O. MARIYAPPASHETTY, VIDYANAGAR, NANJANGUD – 571 301.
2. SRINIVASA S/O. LATE D. RAMU, R/AT RAMASWAMY LAYOUT, NANJANGUD – 571 301.
3. PADMA D/O. LATE D. RAMU R/AT PRAGATHI NAGAR, NANJANGUD – 571 301. ... RESPONDENTS ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.07.08.2017 IN EX.NO.134/2016 ON APPLICATION FILED ON 16.12.2008, VIDE ANNEX-B PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE NANJANGUD AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is said to be the daughter of original judgment debtor D.Ramu, since deceased. The first respondent – decree holder had filed a suit in O.S.No.40/2004, seeking ejectment of D.Ramu from the suit schedule shop and the said suit was decreed on 14/06/2006.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that subsequently, an execution petition was filed, which was dismissed for default. Thereafter, Execution Petition No.134/2016 has been filed arraying the widow and son of D.Ramu as the Legal Representatives (L.Rs) of the deceased judgment debtor. In the said execution, a delivery warrant has been issued on 07/08/2017 as against the L.Rs of the judgment debtor. That order has not been assailed either by the widow or son of the judgment debtor, who have been arrayed as L.Rs in the execution petition. But, the petitioner herein who claims to be daughter of the judgment debtor - late D.Ramu, has assailed the said order dated 07/08/2017, in this writ petition.
3. Petitioner resides at Matagalli in Mysore and the suit schedule shop is in Nanjangud. Petitioner is unable to show any interest she has in respect of the suit schedule shop or show in what capacity she is in possession of that shop. It is noted that petitioner is not a party in the execution proceedings and the impugned order is not passed against her. In the circumstances, she has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel is unable to point out, as to in what capacity she is in possession of the suit schedule shop. When the petitioner is unable to show that she has any right to possession of the suit schedule shop, her non arraying as a party in the execution proceedings would not cause any prejudice to her. There is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is hence dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs