Karnataka High Court
WP/2805/2024 of SRI .A. MUNIREDDY Vs SMT. LALITHAMMA on 29 August 2026
NC: 2025:KHC:28988 WP No. 2805 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2805 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A . MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY, R/AT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2805 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. A. MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY,
R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 571 512.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. LALITHAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
R/AT 14/71-B/10-D,
ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU - 635 109.
2.
SMT. SUMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
R/AT 14/71-B/10-D,
ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU - 635 109
3.
SHRI. R. RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNA,
R/AT 14/71-B/10-D,
ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU - 635 109.
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. BHARATHI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O LATE MUNIRAJU,
R/AT MIG NO. 101,
AVALAPALLI HOUSE BOARD,
BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU STATE - 635 109.
5.
SHRI. PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,
R/AT MIG NO. 101,
AVALAPALLI HOUSE BOARD,
BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU STATE - 635 109.
6.
SHRI. ANAND BABU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE RAMASWAMY,
R/AT DOOR NO.15,
MALAKSMI NAGAR,
NEAR ASTC, HUDCO, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU STATE - 635 109.
7.
SMT. JAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O RAMAMURTHY,
R/AT DOOR NO.106,
VENKATESWARA LAYOUT,
OPPOSITE TO DSP OFFICE,
DENAKANIKOTE ROAD, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU STATE - 635 109.
8.
SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
W/O SRINIVAS,
R/AT PLOT NO.2,
JAYALAKSHMI ILLAM,
AMAN NAGAR, HOSUR,
TAMILNADU STATE - 635 109.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURENDRANATH T.V., ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2023 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.29/2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner-judgment debtor is before this Court calling in question an order dated 30.10.2023 by which the concerned Court permits initiation of Execution Petition which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation of 12 years.
2. Heard Sri.Muralidhar B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Surendranath T.V., appearing for respondents and have perused the material on record.
3. Petitioner is the judgment debtor which reaches this court in R.S.A.No.1559/2006 having it been disposed on
HC-KAR
9.7.2010. The Execution Petition is preferred on 21.11.2022. Limitation to prefer an Execution Petition is admittedly 12 years from the date of the decree which would be 12 years from 9.7.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Execution Petition is preferred on 21.11.2022 which is 132 days beyond the period of limitation.
5. The said submission would run counter to law as when the Nation was engulfed with COVID-19, the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in re COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, had passed certain orders extending the limitation from time to time. The period of limitation that stood extended was for a period of two years from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. If the said period is excluded, the Execution Petition now preferred would be well within limitation. The concerned Court has considering the order passed by the Apex Court, has held that the Execution Petition
HC-KAR
is maintainable. The order of the concerned Court being in tune with law, there is no warrant to interfere with the said finding.
The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1