MAHALAXMI Vs. G GOPALA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.Shivamurthy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent.

(2.) Perused the records. Parties are referred to as per their rank before Executing Court viz., petitioner is referred to as 'Judgment Debtor-JDR' and respondent is referred to as 'Decree Holder-DHR'.

(3.) Decree Holder, in order to enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained in R.A.No.434/2009, filed Execution Petition in Ex.No.93/2010. During the pendency of Execution Petition, two applications came to be filed by Judgment Debtor viz., I.A.No.7 under Order 6 Rule 6 and 7 Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC', for short) praying to summon the documents for the Town Planning, Mysore City Corporation to ascertain as to whether there is conservancy lane between the property of JDR and DHR; and, second application viz., I.A.No.8 came to be filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointing a Court Commissioner for scientific investigation viz., as to whether the property bearing No.1956 belonging to judgment debtor can be permitted to be demolished since such demolition would result in remaining portion of the building collapsing. Both these applications were opposed by the decree holder and Executing Court by impugned order dated 04.04.2015 (Annexure-J) dismissed the same on the ground that Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and decree passed by first Appellate Court which has been affirmed in RSA 413/2010 by this Court.