- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24578 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. NAKODA CREATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JALARAM MARKET, 3RD FLOOR D.K.LANE, CHICKPET BENGALURU - 560 053 MR. MAHAVEER RATANCHAND JAIN PRESENT PROPRIETRIX SANTHOSH R.PUNMIYA PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. VEER TEXTILES BY ITS PROPRIETOR SANJAY D.GALA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS NO.528, CHANDRA CHOWK 5TH LANE, M.J.MARKET, KALBADEVI MUMBAI - 400 002 PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI AJAY R. A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 13.10.2023 PASSED IN EX.NO.1274/2022 ON THE IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE REJECTING I.A.NO.2 TO LEAD EVIDENCE AND ALSO ISSUANCE OF A/W/M WARRANT AND GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD EVIDENCE AND HOLD ENQUIRY AS PER LAW, ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE, ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – defendant – judgment debtor is before this Court calling in question an order dated 13.10.2023, passed in Ex.P.No.1274/2022, by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, insofar as it rejects the application - I.A.No.2, filed under Sections 47(1) r/w. 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to lead evidence and seeks issuance of an arrest warrant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 2. Heard Sri B. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ajay R.A., learned counsel for respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is the judgment debtor. A suit in O.S.No.489/2018 is filed by the respondent - plaintiff respondent against the petitioner – defendant for recovery of money of an amount before the jurisdictional Court at Mumbai. The suit comes to be decreed exparte against the petitioner. The plaintiff – decree holder then files an execution petition before the concerned Court at Bengaluru, at the petitioner’s place of business in Ex.P.No.1274/2022. In the proceedings before the concerned Court, an application is filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents, on 27.01.2023. The reason for production of the documents is that, he has already made substantial payments which is not adjusted. The decree holder – respondent files his objections to I.A.No.1. The concerned Court then directs filing of a memo of calculation. An application – I.A.No.2 is then filed under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 Section 47(1) of the CPC, by the petitioner – judgment debtor to determine the question of discharge from the debt as some amounts had already been paid. The respondent files his objections. The concerned Court then deems it appropriate to conduct an enquiry of I.A.No.2. Thus, posts the matter for an enquiry on I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner – judgment debtor. The concerned Court rejects the application so filed by the petitioner on 13.10.2023. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner would reiterate the contentions advanced in I.A.No.2 so filed before the concerned Court as the decree itself was passed exparte. He would submit that the petitioner should have liberty to produce what is contended in I.A.No.2. He would submit that the concerned Court initially directed an enquiry to be conducted, notwithstanding the same, the impugned order is passed rejecting the application. It is his contention that the execution petition is filed in the name of a wrong person as the firm is owned by a particular person and not the one that is shown as the judgment debtor. He would thus require one opportunity - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 before the concerned Court to demonstrate several contentions which could not be done in the suit. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – decree holder submits that it is only a ruse to get over the execution proceedings and that the petitioner - judgment debtor is now trying to shift his burden of liability on a third party, depicting that a wrong person is impleaded as the judgment debtor. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On the application filed by the petitioner certain orders are passed by the concerned Court. The order so passed are as follows: “Advocate for DHR present and he submits this EP petition filed based on summery suit no.489/2018 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai on 26.06.2019 against the JDR and same was transferred from the Bombay city civil court to Bengaluru City Civil Court for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 L/d counsel for the DHR files objections to the IA.No.2 filed by the JDR u/Sec. 47 (1) of CPC. For hearing on IA.No.2 Call on 14.09.2023 Sd/- 30.08.2023 C/o XLIV ACC & SJ. B'luru” “JDR has satisfied the decree by transferring the amount by way of RTGS thus he wants to produce some documents under IA.No.1 thus prays to post the matter for conducting enquiry on IA.No.2 filed u/Sec.47 of the CPC. On perusal of the objections on the EP, affidavit accompanied with IA.No.2 the court founds that as the JDR is categorically contended that he has settled the amount against the EP thus this court felt it is proper to conduct an enquiry on IA.No.2. thus posted for enquiry on IA.No.2 filed by the JDR. Call on 13.10.2023 Sd/- 14.09.2023 C/c XLIV ACC & SJ, B'luru” “The JDR files W/A on his IA.No. 2 filed u/sec 47(1) of CPC. In fact, the JDR had come with the IA.No. 2 u/sec 47(a) of CPC claiming that, he has already satisfied the decree by making the payment through Bank NEFT. By considering the same this court posted the matter for conducting the enquiry on IA.No. 2. to prove the payment to satisfy the decree the JDR is supposed to place the documents, instead of he came with the W/A. which is the replica of contention taken on IA.No. 2. if the conduct of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 JDR is considered. he might have filed IA.No. 2 with intend to delay the execution proceedings and cause an harassment to DHR. As the JDR fails to make out the case that he has satisfy the decree, thus his IA.No. 2 does not requires for consideration in the hands of this court, thus IA.No. 2 is dismissed as no merits. Issue A/W/M against the JDR to recover the petition amount, if the DHR pay's the PF in the office. Call on 19.12.2023.” 13.10.2023 C/c XLIV ACC & SJ, B’luru” (Emphasis added) On 14.09.2023, the concerned Court observes that on perusal of the objections to the execution petition, an affidavit accompanying the application in I.A.No.2, was of the opinion that an enquiry is to be conducted on I.A.No.2. Nothing is done and the application is rejected apart from the very issuance of a arrest warrant to recovery. The petitioner amount. This action of the concerned Court does not inspire the confidence. If the Court has already observed that an enquiry is necessary to be conducted as the contention of the petitioner – judgment debtor was that he has settled the amount sought in the execution petition. The same should - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 have taken to its logical conclusion and the proceedings could not have abandoned in street. 8. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the enquiry as observed hereinabove and pass necessary orders in accordance with law on I.A.No.2, then regulate its procedure and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the XLIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.2 stands quashed. c. The application No.2 is restored to file of the concerned Court. d. The concerned Court shall conclude the enquiry as observed in the course of the order, pass necessary - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21024 WP No. 24578 of 2023 orders on I.A.No.2, in accordance with law and regulate its procedure thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 CT:SS