- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100156 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. IRAVVA D/O FAKKIRAPPA HALAVOOR AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MALAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. 2. SMT. GIRIJAVVA D/O FAKKIRAPPA HALAVOOR AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MALAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI IRAPPA S/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. 2. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O SUTAGATTI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580020. 3. SMT. BASAVVA W/O BASAPPA HALAVOOR AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O MANAGUNDI, TQ. KALGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. …RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2024 PASSED IN MISC.NO.11/2023, BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.04 11:07:28 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) This Civil Revision petition is filed by the respondent No.3(a) and 3(b) challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 in Misc.No.11/2023 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi allowing the application filed by the petitioner therein under Order XXI Rule 105(1) of CPC. 2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of the revision petition are that the respondents herein have filed O.S.No.17/1990 seeking relief of partition and separate possession against the petitioners herein and the said suit came to be decreed on 04.09.1995 and thereafter the respondents herein have filed FDP No.14/1996 which came to be decreed on 27.02.2001, Final Decree was drawn. Thereafter, the respondents herein have filed Ex.No.19/2013 seeking possession of the schedule property in terms of the Final Decree Proceedings. It is also forthcoming from the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 impugned order that the petitioners herein have also filed O.S.No.231/2015 challenging the decree in O.S.No.17/1990 and FDP No.14/1996 and the said suit came to be dismissed against which the petitioners herein have preferred R.A.No.20/2017 which also came to be dismissed on 21.01.2021. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the respondent No.3(a) and 3(b) have filed one more suit in O.S.No.253/1996 seeking partition in respect of schedule property therein, which came to be decreed on 04.01.2023. It is the contention of the petitioner in miscellaneous petition that the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.2 and 3 in Execution Petition challenging the maintainability of the Execution Petition. The said case was posted for hearing on I.A.No.2 and 3. However, on account of non-appearance of the parties, the Execution Petition No.19/2013 came to be dismissed for non- prosecution. Hence, the respondent herein have filed Miscellaneous No.37/2016 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi seeking restoration of the proceedings in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 Execution Petition No.19/2013. The said application filed by the respondent herein under Order XXI Rule 105(1) read with Section 151 of CPC came to be allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein (respondents in Misc.No.11/2023) have preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the execution petition is filed beyond the limitation period and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also referred to Article 136 and 137 of the Limitation Act and submitted that the power to challenge the final decree proceedings in FDP No.14/1996 is within three years. However, as the execution petition itself is not maintainable and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having taken note of the finding recorded by the Court below - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 would indicate that a suit in O.S.No.17/1990 has been filed seeking relief of partition and separate possession by the respondents herein and the said suit came to be decreed on 04.09.1995 and thereafter FDP No.14/1996 is filed, which came to be allowed on 27.02.2001 by the competent Civil Court and accordingly, final decree has been drawn. Thereafter, the petitioner in Misc.No.11/2023 has filed Execution Petition No.19/2013 seeking possession of the schedule property in terms of the decree passed in FDP No.14/1996. It is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the competent Court in Misc.No.11/2023 that the petitioners herein had preferred O.S.No.231/2015 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17/1990 as well as FDP No.14/1996 and the said suit i.e. O.S.No.231/2015 came to be dismissed and also the petitioners herein have preferred R.A.No.20/2017, which also came to be dismissed on 21.01.2021. In the backdrop of these aspects, the Ex.No.19/2013 was dismissed for non-prosecution on the ground that neither the petitioner nor the learned counsel representing the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 petitioner in the above case, represented the matter. Hence, the respondents herein have preferred Misc.No.11/2023 under Order XXI Rule 105(1) read with Section 151 of CPC. 5. Having taken note of the finding recorded by the Court below, particularly, with regard to the finding recorded by the Court at paragraph 7 where the dismissal of the execution petition is on the ground of default on the part of the petitioner to represent the matter, the Court below taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners therein have succeeded in O.S.No.17/1990 and FDP No.14/1996 and have the benefit of the judgment and decree passed therein and therefore, allowed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 105(1) of CPC. It is pertinent to mention herein that, the Court below by exercising its discretionary jurisdiction on the ground that the dismissal of the Ex. No.19/2013 would not come in the way of the petitioners therein to get the decree has to be considered. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1979 CRP No. 100156 of 2024 that though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein urged by referring to Article 136 and 137 of the Limitation Act, however, the said aspect has to be considered in the execution petition at the time adjudicating the matter. Hence, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Since this Court is having limited scope under Section 115 of CPC in respect of revisional jurisdiction, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 6. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20