IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11611 OF 2014 C/W WRIT PETITON NOs.50201-202 OF 2013 (GM-AC) WRIT PETITION NO.11611 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO., LTD., VANIGOTRA COMPLEX CHITRADURGA-577501 REP. BY ITS POA SRI. M.R. MADHUSUDAN S/O MANVI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. 29/A, 2ND FLOOR K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE.
(BY MR. M. ASHOK KUMAR, ADV.) AND:
1. S. SYED IMRAN S/O SYED AMEER HUSSAIN MAJOR, R/O DOOR No.4 HOUSING BOARD COLONEY HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
2. REHMAN SAB S/O IMAM SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
3. NAZREENA BANU @ NAZRUNNISSA@NAZRUN … PETITIONER W/O REHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. NEHA BANU D/O REHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIN REHMAN SAB.
ALL ARE R/O. MATADA KURUBARAHATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR. B. PRAMOD, ADV., FOR R2-R4 V/O DTD:14/01/2015 TO R1 DISPENSED WITH) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.25.11.2013 VIDE ANNX-A ON I.A.No.9 PASSED IN EX.CASE No.7/2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA ONLY TO AN EXTENT OF RELEASING A SUM OF RS.1,00,000/- TO THE R-2 TO 4 AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY & ETC.
WRIT PETITION NOs.50201-202 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. REHMAN SAB S/O IMAM SAB AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
2. NAZREENA BANU @ NAZRUNNISSA @ NAZRUN W/O REHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
3. NEHA BANU D/O REHAMAN SAB AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/O. MATADA KURUBARAHATTY VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
… PETITIONERS (BY MR. B. PRAMOD, ADV.) AND:
1. S. SYED IMRAN S/O SYED AMEER HUSSAIN AGED MAJOR R/O. DOOR No.4, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.
2. THE MANAGER SRI. RAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO., LTD., VANIGOTRA COMPLEX CHITRADURGA-577501.
… RESPONDENTS (BY MR. M. ASHOK KUMAR, ADV., FOR R2 V/O DTD:14/1/2015 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 22.2.2013 ON I.A.7 VIDE ANN-K AND 25.10.2013 ANNEX-N ON I.A.NO.9 PASSED IN EX CASE NO.7/2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITRADURGA & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
COMMON ORDER Sri.M.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.B.Pramod, learned counsel for the respondent.Nos.2 to 4.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the order dated 25.11.2013 passed in execution proceedings insofar as it pertains to allowing the application for impleadment of the petitioner in W.P.No.11611/2014 in the execution proceeding as well as the order on I.A.No.9, by which the application filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has been partly allowed and the executing court has directed to release a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.11611/2014 and remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.50201-202/13 4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petitions briefly stated are that respondent No.1 in W.P.No.11611/2014 had obtained a loan of Rs.12,77,549/- from the petitioner in the said writ petition for purchasing a lorry. The aforesaid lorry was involved in an accident. Thereupon the respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation. Thereupon an award was passed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 thereupon initiated an execution proceeding for recovery of the amount of award. In the aforesaid execution proceeding, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 sought an attachment of the vehicle of respondent No.1, in respect of which the petitioner in W.P.No.11611/2014 had extended financial assistance. The aforesaid vehicle was auctioned in pursuance of the orders passed by executing courting in execution proceedings for a sum of Rs.6,25,000/-. The aforesaid amount was deposited before the executing court. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application for impleadment in the executing proceeding as well as filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The executing court by impugned order dated 25.11.2013 directed that a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- out of the amount of auction be paid to the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs.1 Lakh be paid to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The application filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.11611/2014 for impleadment was also allowed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Admittedly, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 had initiated the proceedings for recovery of the amount of award. In the aforesaid execution proceeding, the vehicle in question was auctioned for Rs.6,25,000/- The respondent Nos.2 to 4 were entitled to a sum of Rs.2,80,700/-, which was the amount of compensation awarded in their favour. However, the executing court instead of satisfying the claim of respondent Nos.2 to 4 as per the award allowed the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner in the execution proceeding filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 and directed that a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. In W.P.No.11611/2014 such a course of action was clearly impermissible in law in the execution proceeding initiated by respondent Nos.2 to 4 for execution of the award. The petitioner neither was necessary nor a proper party in the execution proceeding initiated by respondent Nos.2 to 4 the impugned order insofar as it pertains to allowing the application for impleadment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, the order of the executing court directing payment of sum of Rs.5,25,000/- to the petitioner in the execution proceeding initiated by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is also non cognizable as any such direction could have been issued after satisfaction of claim of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The impugned order is therefore quashed and the executing court is directed firstly to ensure that the claim of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is satisfied and thereafter the remaining amount shall be disbursed in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS