EXECUTIVE ENGINEER K E B Vs. SUDEGALA THIPPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common question of law has arisen in all these civil revision petitions, they have been heard together and this common order is passed.

(2.) The petitioner Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) filed suits against the respective respondents for arrears of dues due to the Board regarding the consumption of electrical energy, penalty etc. Decrees were passed in favour of the Board. The Board filed respective execution cases under O.21 of the Civil P.C. Two contentions were put forth in the execution proceedings. The first contention was that the execution is incompetent and the executing Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the execution in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 79 of 1976. It may be stated here itself that this contention has been repelled by the executing Court. Sri P. D. Karigouda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in C.R.P Nos. 2308 of 1980 and 2315 of 1980, did not, in my opinion, rightly urge this contention in this Court also. The second contention is that in view of the provisions in the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 51 of 1976, the execution is incompetent and the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed under O.21 of the Civil P.C. This contention has been upheld.

(3.) It goes without saying that when a decree has been passed by a competent Court, the executing Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree and see that the decree is satisfied. This jurisdiction has to be specifically taken away by a provision in a statute. No such provision has been relied upon in these matters. None of the provisions of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down such a principle of law.