LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-39

BARGOOR ALLABAKSHI Vs. AKSHTHA,

Decided On October 05, 2020
Bargoor Allabakshi Appellant
V/S
Akshtha, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.89/2005, which he had filed against one Siddappa, S/o. Yamanappa, for the relief of specific performance of contract with respect to an immovable property. In spite of service of summons to him, he did not appear to contest the matter and as such, the said suit came to be decreed ex-parte against him. The plaintiff therein, who is the present petitioner, filed an execution petition in Execution Case No.86/2008 for the execution of the decree he was holding against the said Siddappa. The said Siddappa, the Judgment Debtor, appeared in the execution petition. During the pendency of the said Execution Petition, he passed away. The decree holder brought the legal representatives, that is the wife and two daughters of deceased Judgment Debtor Siddappa on record. It is only the wife of the deceased Siddappa as Judgment Debtor No.1 contested the execution petition by filing her statement of objections. However, she could not succeed in the execution petition and the Executing Court through the Court Commissioner got the sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner on 14.09.2012. Subsequently the present respondents filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC praying the trial Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.89/2005. The decree holder i.e., the present petitioner filed his statement of objections to the same and contested the matter. However, the trial Court by its impugned order dated 12.12.2012 allowed the said petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC (though showing it to be an order allowing the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC) and set aside the decree passed in O.S.No.89/2005 dated 05/03/2007 and restored the said suit on record. Both the parties were directed to appear before the Court on a particular date and to participate in further proceedings. It is against the said order dated 12.12.2012, the plaintiff in the original suit, who was the decree holder has filed the present petition.

(2.) The respondent is being represented by his counsel.

(3.) Heard both side.