Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Leelavathi, filed a civil revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, challenging an order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the XXI Additional Small Causes and ACMM Court, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.1315/2015. The impugned order allowed an application filed by the first respondent (objector) under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Section 151 CPC, directing restoration of possession of the execution schedule property to the objector and imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner. Additionally, the execution court set aside the compromise decree passed in S.C.No.314/2015 (the eviction suit) based on which the petitioner had initiated execution proceedings. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without issuing any notice to her, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The High Court observed that the execution court had set aside the compromise decree and ordered restoration of possession without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The court held that such an order, passed behind the back of the decree holder, could not be sustained. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Small Causes Court for fresh consideration after issuing notice to all parties.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Order XXI Rule 99 CPC - Restoration of Possession - The Small Causes Court allowed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC filed by an objector, setting aside a compromise decree and ordering restoration of possession, without issuing notice to the decree holder. The High Court held that such an order passed without notice to the affected party violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. (Paras 1-3) B) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Setting Aside - Natural Justice - The execution court set aside a compromise decree passed in an eviction suit without affording an opportunity of hearing to the decree holder. The High Court held that a decree cannot be set aside behind the back of the decree holder, and the order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Small Causes Court could set aside a compromise decree and order restoration of possession in an application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC without issuing notice to the decree holder.
Final Decision
The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.04.2021 passed in Ex.P.No.1315/2015 by the XXI Additional Small Causes and ACMM Court, Bengaluru, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Small Causes Court for fresh consideration after issuing notice to all parties.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 99 CPC
- Section 18 Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act 1964
- Natural Justice
- Compromise Decree
- Restoration of Possession
- Setting Aside Decree Without Notice
