Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1092 (KAR)

Basavaraj G Rajolad v. Deputy Commissioner

2010-10-20

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2010
Judgment :- 1. There was reluctance on the part of Sri Mallikarjun, Advocate appearing for the petitioner to open the case on the premise that the subject matter relates to circuit Bench at Dharwad and not to the principal Bench at Bangalore and therefore the matter has to be transferred and that the entire file has already been dispatched to the petitioner and therefore pleaded inability. 2. To enable learned counsel for the petitioner to make submissions on the merits of the case and to apprise this court of the facts of the writ petition, court file was given to learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, when the appearing Advocate started his submission, his senior colleague Mr. Siddaramaiah has appeared and sought permission of the court to make submissions on the merits of the matter. 3. Sri Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make submissions on the merits of the matter. 4. Sri Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession, but is nevertheless aggrieved by the part of the order dated 4.10.2010 passed by the learned civil Judge [Sr.Dn.,], & Principal JMFC, Ranebennur in Execution Petition No.21 of 2010 [copy of the order sheet produced as Annexure-D] for the petitioner herein who is an Advocate for the decree holders to question this part of the order before this court in writ petition as the learned civil Judge conducting the execution proceedings has directed the Advocate for the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount which had been deposited by the Town Municipal Council, Ranebennur who it appears had acquired some lands belonging to the decree holders and a sum of rupees twenty lakhs which had been disbursed to the decree holders 1, 2 and 3 and that the sisters of decree holder No.4 having come up before the court that the balance amount which was still required to be deposited by the acquiring authority is not sufficient to meet their share, the court it appears has directed redeposit of 50% of the amount withdrawn by the decree holders 1 to 3, but while doing so, has directed the Advocate himself to deposit the amount and it is aggrieved by this part of the order, the present writ petition. 5. Jurisdiction is that of the High Court and not that of any Bench either principal or circuit Bench. 5. Jurisdiction is that of the High Court and not that of any Bench either principal or circuit Bench. Every Judge of the High Court exercises the jurisdiction of the High Court and not any other jurisdiction. Therefore, the dichotomy that the matter has to be heard before this Bench or that Bench is at the best a procedural convenience and does not detract from the jurisdiction. It is not for the court as to why a matter is listed before the court or not listed. There are all matters on the administrative side which is not in examination in this writ petition. Therefore, the request for directing transfer of the writ petition to circuit Bench at Dharwad is rejected and the matter is heard on merits. 6. The learned civil Judge who has passed the order as under: “4-10-10 DHrby BGR JDr4(b) to 4(c) by P S C JDr1 & 2 by AGP For hearing Records received P S C filed objections to 1A No 3 heard I A No 2 I/o 1 rule 10 of c p c BGR objected for the same. The proposed DHr are also claiming the right over the amount award. Hence no prejudice will be caused the DHr if application is allowed. Hence I A No 2 filed U/o 1 rule 10 for C P C is here by allowed cause title amended 1 A No 3 U/o 21 rule 97 of c p c upon hearing both parties it reveals that DHr 1 to 3 are entitled for 50% of the amount deposited LR’s of DHr 4 are also entitled for 50% amount deposited by the DHr no 1 to 3 have got released entire amount of in their name which is wrong on the part of DHr No 1 to 3 & their counsel believing the submission made by adv for DHr No 1 to 3 & 4(a) Sri BGR entire amount deposited is release in the name of DHr 1 to 3. The said order was snatched by adv for DHr 1 to 3 & 4(a) by making false submission by knowingly or unknowingly. Hence adv for DHr no 1 to 3 & 4(a) is directed to deposit the 50% of the amount got release by DHr 1 to 3 by next date of hearing without fall right of the LR’s of DHr 4 is kept open for deciding. Hence adv for DHr no 1 to 3 & 4(a) is directed to deposit the 50% of the amount got release by DHr 1 to 3 by next date of hearing without fall right of the LR’s of DHr 4 is kept open for deciding. Call on 18/10.” hasgiven reasons as to why such an order has come to be passed. It appears the petitioner was appearing for all the decree holders numbering 1 to 4 and it was submission of the petitioner Advocate which made the court to permit decree holders 1 to 3 alone to withdraw the entire amount and the court has recorded a finding that it was the incorrect or misleading submission of the Advocate for the decree holders which resulted in withdrawal of the entire amount and therefore Advocate for decree holders is equally responsible for the withdrawal of the amount by only decree holders 1 to 3 and in this background has directed the redeposit of 50% of the amount which in the opinion of the learned civil Judge should have been distributed to the legal heir of the fourth decree holder. 7. The mere fact that the court has indicated that deposit should be made by the Advocate for the decree holders himself is not a determination of the rights of the Advocate vis-à-vis his claims. The civil court having noticed that there was some misrepresentation, has directed redeposit of the amount which legitimately if at all may belong to decree holder No.4(a). 8. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or even irregularity in the order and if it is misleading submission of the Advocate which has led to the disbursement of the amount to only decree holders 1 to 3, it is the equal responsibility of the Advocate to ensure that the amount is redeposited to the extent of entitlement of decree holder No.4 (a) as Advocate had filed power for all the decree holders. 9. It is also open to the Advocate to take such steps a may be necessary for claiming reimbursement if at all it is so necessary for entitlement etc.,. but not interference is warranted with this order in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Writ petition is dismissed.