IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.53049/2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO. 186/7, RAGHAVENDRA COMPLEX, 1ST CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE – 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER S.K. SANDEEP, AGED 37 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADV. & SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADV.) AND:
SMT. D. VIJAYA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O LATE M.T. NAGARAJAPPA, R/O C/O SHIVAKUMAR, PRINCIPAL, BEHIND RTO OFFICE, CHITRADURGA CITY. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EXECUTION CASE NO. 80/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, PERUSE THE SAME AND PRODUCED AT ANNEX-A DATED 12.9.2017 AND SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.09.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Court below in Execution No.80/2014.
2. The respondent herein is the claimant in the MVC proceedings. Since according to the respondent, the amount due as per the judgment and award had not been paid, the execution petition was filed. The Court below, through the order impugned herein has allowed the memo filed by the decree holder and has issued warrant for attachment of movables against the petitioner herein, who is the judgment debtor for balance amount. It is against such order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the Annexure-D produced along with this petition would submit that the entire amount has been paid. Though such contention is put forth before this Court, the order impugned would disclose that the Court below was constrained to pass the said order since, no material had been produced by the petitioner to indicate that the entire amount had been paid. In fact, the Court below has observed that despite appearance and opportunity, no relevant and cogent documents has been produced.
4. If that be the position, the order impugned essentially is an order passed for the default of the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has material to indicate that the amount has been paid, it would be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking recall of the impugned order to take note of the material available with the petitioner. If such application is filed by the petitioner, the Court below shall take note of the same and pass orders in accordance with law.
With such liberty and direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST