- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 109778 OF 2016 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MAHABAL S/O. MONAPPA SHETTY, AGE: 63 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: "SRIDEVI", CHITRAGI, KADABALA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JANATA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, BHATKAL, BRANCH KUMATA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. GUNAVATI W/O. MAHABAL SHETTY, AGE: 53 YEARS, R/O. "SRIDEVI", CHITRAGI, KADABALA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. RAVI NARAYAN NAMBIYAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. NAMBIYAR HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, BHATKAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2016 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.262/2016, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA, IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.262/2006, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: “1. Issue a Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.10.2016 passed on I.A.No.Iv in Execution Petition No.262/2016, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A, and also the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta, in Execution Petition No.262/2006, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B and etc. 2. Any other Writ which this Honorable court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiff with the cost throughout in the ends of justice and equity.” 2. Heard. 3. Sri.J.S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court has committed a grave error in passing the impugned order at Annexures-A and B. It is submitted that the Execution Court erred in ignoring the fact that the LIC policy amount of Rs.96,733/- which has been appropriated by the bank has not been deducted. Further, various amounts paid by the petitioner on different occasions in the executing proceedings is also not taken note of and without arriving at the actual dues of the petitioner, the Executing Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 has proceeded to issue warrant of attachment of movable properties of the petitioner-judgment debtor. It is submitted that the judgment debtor has filed an application seeking direction against the decree holder to produce the certified copies of the documents including loan ledger extracts and other documents which would demonstrate that the entire dues of the decree holder has been cleared. It is further submitted that the judgment debtor has paid excess amount than the amount due. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Bank/decree holder supports the order of the trial court and submits that the trial Court has recorded reasons in the impugned order taking note of the memo of calculation filed by the judgment debtor and recorded a clear finding that there are still dues of Rs.3,25,888/- till the date of passing of the order excluding the interest period mentioned in the said order. It is submitted that the documents sought have no bearing on the issue and based on the said documents already award has been passed and the amount has been determined. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The respondent initiated executing proceedings in EP No.262/2006 which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC., Kumta. In the said proceedings the petitioner- judgment debtor filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking direction to the decree holder to produce the certified copies of loan ledger No.2, 28 and 44 extracts, the list of 3 pigmy accounts extracts belonging to judgment debtor, the list of FD accounts belonging to judgment debtor, shares and dividends particulars of judgment debtor, the insurance bond which is kept as security to loan and audit report of the society from the year 2004 to 2006. The trial Court considering the rival contentions, recorded the clear finding that the documents are not necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has paid excess amount to the respondent-Bank/decree holder. It is contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 that the memo of calculation filed before this Court indicates that the judgment debtor has paid excess amount of Rs.2,11,847/-. In my considered view, the memo of calculation filed by the judgment debtor cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. It is the Executing Court that is required to relook the issue with regard to the assertion made by the petitioner. The Executing Court in the impugned order while rejecting the application in I.A.No.IV has recorded the finding that the judgment debtor is in due of Rs.3,25,888/-. In addition, he is entitled to pay the interest for the particular period mentioned in the order. The said finding of the Executing Court is seriously disputed by the petitioner in view of the memo of calculation by contending that the Executing Court has not taken note of various amounts paid by the petitioner. In my considered view, the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh memo of calculation indicating the payments made by him to the bank so far. It is also open to the respondent No.1-decree holder to file its memo of calculation indicating actual dues including the interest, if any. The Executing Court taking note of the memo of calculation has to first arrive to a conclusion with regard to the actual dues, if any, and then proceed in the matter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 Furthermore, in my considered view, the Executing Court taking note of the nature of relief sought in I.A.No.IV filed in the Executing proceedings with regard to production of documents has rejected the same, which does not call for any interference. Therefore, it is the Executing Court that is required to re- examine the assertion of the petitioner with regard to the payments made by considering the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner and the respondents afresh. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed off. (ii) The impugned order passed by the trial Court on I.A.No.IV is upheld insofar as rejection of prayer to produce the documents from the decree holder. However, the finding with regard to dues is set-aside. (iii) The order of attachment dated 28.11.2016 is set-aside. (iv) The Executing Court is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and the respondents - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10658 WP No. 109778 of 2016 afresh and determine the actual dues and proceed further, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3