The Karnataka High Court has slapped a fine of Rs 2 lakh on a group of petitioners for repeatedly litigating an already decided property issue.
Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot mechanically issue notices on third party applications exercising rights over the property.
The civil dispute regarding a 31,000 square feet property in Richmond Town dates back to 1980 when one B R Rangaswamy filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by D Syed Younus in 1978.
Also Read | Karnataka HC bins appeal on recodifying management at Datta Peetha
Though the suit was dismissed by the civil court, the high court passed an order in 1999 holding that the suit was decreed in favour of B R Rangaswamy, which was also affirmed by the Apex Court in 2006.
However, a fresh litigation began in 2010 claiming that one S M Muneer had purchased the property from D Syed Younus and registered it in 2008. The court dismissed an application filed by Muneer’s wife and children in the execution petition. The high court dismissed the appeal in 2022.
Petitioners Abdul Kareem and others again approached the high court when the civil court directed to issue possession warrant and break open the lock with the help of the jurisdictional police, if necessary, to take possession of the property in favour of the decree holder. The bench noted that the effort of the petitioners is to somehow stall the decree holders’ getting fruits of the decree.
“The Apex Court clearly holds that the court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of the CPC must not issue notice on the application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner,” the court said.
“The court should refrain from entertaining any such application that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit.
“The Apex Court also notices that there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution, causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief, which the party seeks from the court despite there being a decree in their favour.
“The Apex Court records that the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject matter, which he is otherwise not entitled to,” the court further added. It directed the petitioners to pay the cost amount to the family members of late B R Rangaswamy.