G. PRASAD REDDY Vs. A. MALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment debtor in Execution Petition No. 27/2011 being aggrieved by order dated 30.04.2014 passed by II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore - Annexure -F allowing the application filed by decree holder under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is before this Court seeking for quashing of the same.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri K. Suman, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri. S.N. Prashanth Chandra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri K. Suman, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that Executing Court could not have entertained the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for collection of evidence when execution petition filed by respondent - decree holder is for alleged violation of judgment and decree and in such an event, only remedy available to decree holder is to tender evidence to establish the fact that there has been violation of injunction order and thereafter proceed to pass orders on execution petition. He would elaborate his submission by contending that in the instant case, though decree holder very well knew even at the time of filing of suit itself that judgment debtor had sold the property and it was not in his possession, question of alleged violation did not arise. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the impugned order.