High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 07 KAR CK 0065

A. Venkatasubbaiah and Co. vs B.S. Rajanna Chetty and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 23 July 2002 · Citation: AIR 2002 Kar 400 : (2005) ILR (Kar) 1265 : (2005) 3 KCCR 1623 : (2002) 4 KCCR 2536

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Gopala Gowda, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 2861 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 387 words

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The judgment debtor has questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by the Executing Court issuing

delivery warrant for delivery of possession of the property and is seeking to set aside the same.

2.

The decree holder filed the execution petition seeking delivery of possession of balance of the property in respect of which eviction had been

ordered in H.R.C. No. 2958/83. The eviction order was confirmed by this Court in H.R.R.P. No. 5357/88 granting one year time to vacate the

schedule premises. While the Judgment Debtor asserted that he has handed over the entire portion of schedule premises on 23-7-1995, the decree

holder alleges that possession of an extent of 10 x 30"" is not at all delivered. The Executing Court considered the rival pleas of the parties and

issued delivery warrant.

3.

Since the judgment debtor categorically asserts that entire property had been delivered, it should not have been aggrieved by the delivery

warrant issued by the Executing Court. If really entire property is delivered as asserted, the judgment debtor should not be in possession of any

portion of the schedule property. In such an event, even if the delivery warrant is executed, nothing will happen to the judgment debtor as it is

already out of possession of the schedule property. No harm, injury or prejudice would be caused to it. If the assertion of the judgment debtor

were to be true, this revision petition should not have been filed challenging the order issuing delivery warrant. When the specific assertion is that

entire property had been delivered to the decree holders, there was no occasion for the judgment debtor to continue the litigation. If the Decree

Holders want to execute the delivery warrant against any person in occupation or possession of any portion of the schedule property, judgment

debtor having delivered entire property should allow the decree holders to have full satisfaction of the decree for eviction obtained by them. If there

is delivery of entire schedule property to the decree holders, this Court fail to understand for what purpose this revision petition is filed seeking

setting aside the delivery warrant issued by the Executing Court. On the admitted facts, this revision petition is wholly unnecessary and liable to be

dismissed in limine.

4.

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.