- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2802 WP No. 105190 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 105190 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. PRAKASH S/O SATAPPA KOLUR AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. H.NO. 1332, NEAR BUS STAND, AT POST. NAGANUR, TQ. MUDALAGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591312. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADV) AND: 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH MUDALAGI, A CORPORATION CONSTITUTED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955 CARRYING ON ITS BANKING BUSINESS HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AMONGST OTHERS AT TMC NO.80 V.I. HOSUR BUILDING MUDALAGI, TQ. MUDALAGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591312, REP BY BRANCH MANAGER. 2. SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O SATAPPA KOLUR AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. H.NO. 1332, NEAR BUS STAND, AT POST. NAGANUR, TQ. MUDALAGI DIST. BELAGAVI-591312. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2022 IN E.P.NO.55/2022 BY THE I/C PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK VIDE ANNEXURE-F. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.02.21 12:34:11 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2802 WP No. 105190 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in E.P.No.55/2022 by the Incharge Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner had availed a loan from respondent No.1- Bank. The petitioner committed default and did not repay the loan amount. Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.441/2020 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, for recovery of money against the petitioner and respondent No.2. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 15.11.2021. The respondent No.1 filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.55/2022. The petitioner and respondent No.2 did not repay the decreetal amount. The Executing Court has passed an order for attachment of immovables of the petitioner and respondent No.2. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2802 WP No. 105190 of 2022 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Belagavi. In view of the same, the Executing Court has committed an error in issuing attachment warrant. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.441/2020. The petitioner and respondent No.2 have appeared through a counsel and filed a written statement. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 15.11.2021. The petitioner and respondent No1 did not pay the decreetal amount. Respondent No.1 filed the Execution Petition. Though sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner and respondent No.2 to deposit the decreetal amount, the petitioner and respondent No.2 failed to deposit the amount. The Executing Court had no other option except to issue attachment warrant of movable properties of petitioner and respondent No.2. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2802 WP No. 105190 of 2022 7. Merely a complaint is pending before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, is not a ground for the petitioner to contend that execution proceedings cannot be proceeded with. Further, the petitioner has not produced any record to show that the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Belgavi has stayed further proceedings in Execution Petition. The Executing Court was justified in passing the impugned order. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE rs CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48