IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 513 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI S N SINGH S/O N.K.SINGH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SAINT MARGON PHARMACEUTICALS, NO.14, 4TH CROSS, J.C.INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 062.
NOTE: BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP HAS NOT CALIMED) (BY SRI. H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT SUJATHA PRASAD, W/O SRI.GURU PRASAD MAGAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, GAYATHRI TAPOVAN KOTTANUR DINNE, J.P.NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 076 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI GURU PRASAD N.MAGAL.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AKKI MANJUNATHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.334/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-42) AND QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 5.12.2018 PASSED BY THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-42) IN EXECUTION NO.334/2017 ON IA U/S 151 OF CPC, UNDER ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the judgment – debtor in Execution No. 334/2017 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 05.12.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has rejected his application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, for recalling the attachment order dated 31.03.2018. After service of notice, the respondent – decree holder having entered appearance through her counsel resists the writ petition.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) respondent’s ejectment suit in O.S.No.5655/2015 having been compromised, the suit came to be decreed on 01.12.2016; since the petitioner did not comply with the terms of compromise decree, the execution was levied by the respondent – decree holder in Execution Case No.334/2017; even the five cheques drawn by the petitioner in favour of the decree holder for payment of arrears of rent that have been specifically mentioned in the compromise decree itself having been dishonored, the petitioner has been convicted in the cheque bounce cases filed by the respondent – decree holder for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; copies of conviction orders are part of the record;
b) in the execution case, the respondent decree holder has taken the possession of the subject property on 22.02.2017 by executing the delivery warrant and now that the executing court has ordered attachment of petitioner’s Honda City Car bearing Registration No. KA 05 MA 3637, since a huge sum of money is payable under the compromise decree; the amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- deposited by the petitioner in the Court below does not absolve him from discharging the decreetal liability more specially when the decree is founded on a compromise petition; and, c) the conduct of the petitioner in the suit in Regular First Appeal and in the Execution Case falls short of a scrupulous litigant and such litigants cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court; a litigant who does not adhere to the terms of compromise and who has suffered conviction by the criminal Court cannot be granted reprieve at the hands of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being thoroughly devoid of merits, stands dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The Court below shall order release of the amount in deposit made by the petitioner, in favour of the respondent – decree holder, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv