BASAVANT DUNDAPPA Vs. SHIDALINGAPPA SIDARADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the Order dated 25-2-1985, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in Execution Case No. 45/84, allowing I.A. No. II.

(2.) The certified copy of the execution Petition has been produced before me. It shows that the present decree-holder is a transferee from the heir of the original decree-holder-Kallawwa Sidraddi in O.S. No. 101/35. It also shows that the present judgment-debtor is also a transferee from the heirs of the original judgment-debtor-Ummanna. The said suit was for permanent injunction and it was decreed. Now the present transferee-decree-holder wants to execute the decree against the judgment-debtor who is a transferee from the heirs of the original judgment-debtor. Initially, I.A. No. I had been filed by the decree-holder requesting that the tamarind fruit of the three trees in the land in dispute should be auctioned. The Court dismissed I.A. No. I holding that the Execution Petition was not maintainable. Again I.A. 11 was filed by the decree-holder requesting the Court to auction the tamarind fruit of the three trees in the land in dispute between the parties or to call upon the judgment-debtor to deposit Rs. 400/- as security. I.A. II was allowed by the Court below. Hence, the revision by the judgment-debtor.

(3.) When a similar application I.A. No. I had been & led by the decree-holder and when it was dismissed on the ground that the execution Petition is not maintainable, I really wonder how I.A. No. II can be entertained again. The principles of res judicata would apply to the present case as the same matter is between the same parties. Admittedly, the order passed on I.A. No. I has not been challenged either by preferring an appeal or revision. When that order stands, the present I.A. No. II filed for the same reliefs would be barred by principles of res judicata.