IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR C.R.P. NO.510 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI P.GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE BHEEMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT RAMAJOGIHALLY VILLAGE NANNIVALA POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522 (BY SRI SANKET.M.YENAGI, ADV.) AND:
…PETITIONER CANARA BANK CHALLAKERE BRANCH CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577522 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI V.HARIDAS BHAT, ADV.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 21.09.2016 PASSED IN EX NO.19/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHALLAKERE, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 31 OF CPC., FOR NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Court below dismissing the execution petition in Ex.No.19/2015 filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. Under the impugned order, the Court below came to the conclusion that in the face of the undisputed fact that the earlier execution petition in Ex.P.No.14/2012 filed by the petitioner-decree holder for the same relief was dismissed by the Execution Court on 28.02.2014 and the same was not challenged by the petitioner, the second execution petition in Ex.No.19/2015 to execute the same decree was not maintainable.
2. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this revision petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Ex.No.14/2012 referred to supra.
3. It was also submitted that in the event the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Ex.No.14/2012, the petitioner is to be reserved liberty to explain the delay in the light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and have perused the material on record.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Ex.No.14/2012 which has been relied upon by the Court below to pass impugned order. In the interest of justice, I deem it proper to dispose of this Petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.02.2014 passed in Ex.No.14/2012 by way of a separate revision petition/writ petition before this Court. In the event, the petitioner files such a petition, liberty is hereby reserved in favor of the petitioner to explain the delay by taking recourse to Section 14 of the limitation Act.
The civil revision petition disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY