IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.34673/2014(GM-CPC) SRI H. MOHAMMED KHALEEL, S/O MD. HAYAT AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS TRANSPORT BUSINESS R/AT N. R. EXTENTION, CHINTAMANI, ALSO AT BANGALORE, NO. 63, KAZI ROAD 4TH FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.
(PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT)) AND:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 2. SMT. R. LAXMI DEVI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 3. SRI R. R. SHRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 4. SMT. R. R. SOUBHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 5. SMT. R. R. DEVAGEETHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS ... PETITIONER 6. SRI R. R. LAXMINARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS No.1 IS WIFE AND No. 2,4,5 ARE DAUGHTERS AND No.3 & 6 ARE SONS OF LATE K. RAMAPPA, THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF IN O.S. No. 127/97 AND THE PRESENT RESPONDENTS CAME ON RECORD AS LRs OF PLAINTIFF IN EX.15/2006 AND LATER IN EX.4/2007, THEY ARE RESIDENTS OF K. RAHUTHALLI, P. O. KOTAGALLU TALUK, CHINTAMANI DIST. CHICKBALLAPUR.
(BY SRI K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR ... RESPONDENTS SRI V. VISHWANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.7.2014 MADE BY THE CIVIL JUDGE ANNEXURE-A CHINTAMANI, REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/PETITIONER AND ORDERING ISSUE OF DELIVERY WARRANT WITH THE POLICE HELP.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 10.7.2014 whereby the learned Judge in Execution Petition No.4/2007 allowed the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree holder for issue of delivery warrant by breaking open the lock of the schedule premises for executing delivery warrant with the help of the local police.
2. Since there was no interim order passed by this Court, by this time, the impugned order would have been implemented and that is why even though the Court notice is issued to the petitioner, he is not present.
3. As could be seen from the Internet with the help of the Court Officer, Execution Petition No.4/2007 came to be disposed of in view of the compromise petition filed on 2.8.2014.
4. In view of the above, writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed for default.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-