AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioners are the Defendants/JDRs in Execution Case. Suit for injunction was instituted by the 1st Petitioner/Plaintiff against the Defendant/Respondent, wherein, after trial, decree of permanent injunction has been granted. Alleging violation of the decree, Respondent has filed Execution petition. The Petitioners/JDRs have filed their statement of objections to the Execution petition. The JDRs filed I.A.I under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC for pointing a Commissioner to conduct local inspection and to ascertain as to who is in possession of the execution schedule property. According to them, one Jaggu Ameer Sab is in possession of the suit property and the execution has been unnecessarily filed against them, only to harass them. The execution court, finding I.A.I to be devoid of merit, has dismissed the same. This writ petition is filed against the said order.
Heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the writ petition record.
The affidavit in support of the application discloses that, the JDRs intend to establish that, one Jaggu Ameer Sab is in possession of the execution schedule property and the execution petition filed against them is untenable. If the Petitioners/JDRs have not violated the decree of temporary injunction passed against them and intend to establish the fact that Jaggu Ameer Sab is in possession of the property, it is open to them to examine the said person or any other witness to establish the fact that they did not interfere with the possession of the property in respect of which injunction decree has been granted. The application filed being one for collection of evidence, has rightly been dismissed by the Execution Court. There is no error or illegality committed in the matter of consideration of application and passing of the impugned order.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and shall stand dismissed. However, it is open to the JDRs to prove their ease in accordance with law.