G M VANKATAPPA Vs. ANJANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 6-8-2003 in Execution Petition No. 19/1995 on the file of the principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J. M. F. C. , chikkaballapur presented the instant revision petition.

(2.) THE petitioner herein had filed Ex. Pn. No. 19/11995 on the file of Principal Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) and J. M. F. C. . Chikkaballapur with a prayer to arrest and detain the respondents in civil prison and also for a direction to the police to enforce the decree for permanent injunction by executing the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 67/1988. After receipt of summons from the Court below, the respondents have filed their objections to the main petition contending that th petition is not maintainable as the decree was passed placing the respondents ex parte and the suit filed by the deceased-father of the petitioner who is no more, is not maintainable. On the basis of the pleadings of the both the parties and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the Execution; court has framed necessary points for consideration to the effect:

(3.) THE principal submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the trial court is opposed to law, facts and evidence in the case and the trial Court has committed illegality and the order impugned suffers from material irregularity in holding that the execution petition is not maintainable. To substantiate his case, he was quick to point out by placing reliance on the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in the case of ramachandra v. Laxmana Rao (reported in ilr 2000 Kar 2341) : (AIR 2000 Kar 298)that the execution petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable and, therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the matter requires for fresh consideration by the trial Court.