KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru

(Constituent College of KLE Technological University,

Hubballi)

In-Semester Assessment
ASSIGNMENT - 1

Topic:

REPORT ON CERTIFIED COPIES

(Ex.Petition No. 1248/2017)

Student Registration Number: 0 3 F L 2 1 B A L 0 0 2

Programme: B.A LL.B

Semester: 7
Section: A
Course Name (Subject): Code of Civil Procedure
Course Code: 21LALT301

/15
Marks Candidate Signature Evaluator Signature
 DECLARATION
M SHUBHASHREE
I, ________________________________________ declare that this

submitted assignment is my original work and no part of it has been published

any where else in the past. I take full responsibility, that if in future, the paper is

found invalid according to basic rules, the last decision will be of the authorities

concerned. Any form of plagiarism will lead to disqualification of this

assignment.

30/11/2024

Date of Submission Candidate Signature

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank the principal of KLE Society’s Law College, Bengaluru

for providing us with all the facilities to make the process of writing this

research paper easier and more accessible. I would also like to thank our

faculty, Prof. Adv. Mallikarjuna, Prof. Ms. Nathezhdha D Rajasok, Prof. Mr.

Srinivas for providing me with the assignment topic for the TEAM 1 & TEAM

2 and helping me work on the assessment efficiently.

M SHUBHASHREE
Candidate Name: ________________________
 CONTENTS

Page
Sl.No. Particulars
No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. FACTS 1

3. SUMMARY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT 1

4. SUMMARY OF THE INTERM APPLICATION (IA) 3

5. LEGAL ANALYSIS 4

6. PERSONAL OBSERVATION 6

7. CONCLUSION 6

10. 6

11. 7

12. 8

13. 8
9
14.
1

REPORT ON THE CAES PENDING BEFORE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL

JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY EX. CASE NO.1248/2017

Court Hall No. 8 CCH

Name of The Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Santhosh Kumar Shetty N

INTRODUCTION

Court: City Civil Court, Bangalore

Case Number: 1380/2009

- Plaintiff: Sri. Manish, son of late Giridhari G. Makhija, aged 26, residing at Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore.
- Defendants: Sri. P. Ramakrishna and others, including family members and a partnership firm
(M/.s Kalasam Properties).

FACTS
Property Details:
• The dispute involves properties located at 3rd Cross, Puttaiah Compound, Ashwath Nagar,
Bangalore, identified by Municipal and property ID numbers.
• The properties measure a total of 4050 sq. ft. and are bounded by private property and roads.
• Defendants 1 to 5 entered into a Joint Developmental Agreement with the plaintiff on September
11, 2006, allowing for the development of the properties.
• A General Power of Attorney was executed in favor of the 6th Defendant to manage the
properties, registered in 2006.
• The plaintiff agreed to purchase a flat (Flat No. C-2) in a multi-storied complex named
"OYSTER."
• Payments made by the plaintiff included Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 17,00,000 towards the sale
consideration, documented through
• Defendants assured the plaintiff that a Sale Deed would be executed upon completion of the
construction.
2

• The plaintiff was misled into believing that there would be no legal issues regarding the
transaction.
• The plaintiff recently learned that the defendants colluded to transfer interest in the property to the
7th Defendant, creating a third-party claim against the plaintiff's interest.
• The plaintiff asserts that the 7th Defendant is not a bona fide purchaser and that the actions of the
defendants violate the oral agreement.
• The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, seeking the execution
of the Sale Deed and possession of the property.
• The plaintiff claims readiness and willingness to fulfill his obligations under the contract, alleging
that the defendants have failed to perform.
• The plaintiff requests the court to order the defendants to execute the Sale Deed, grant him
possession of the property, and award costs for the proceedings.

SUMMARY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT

The defendants (P. Ramakrishna and others) claim that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff (Manish) is
not valid and should be dismissed. They argue that the case is based on false information and lacks
legal merit. He defendants state that they were not part of any agreement involving the sale of the
property in question. They say that any claims made about an oral agreement between the plaintiff
and another defendant (Defendant No. 6) are not applicable to them.
They mention a registered Power of Attorney that allows Defendant No. 6 to deal with 55% of the
property. The defendants assert that they have no rights over this share and therefore cannot be
forced to sell it.
The defendants deny having received any payments from the plaintiff related to the alleged sale.
They emphasize that they were not involved in any financial transactions with the plaintiff.
They refer to a Joint Development Agreement that outlines the ownership and shares of the
property. According to this agreement, the defendants claim they have no ownership rights over the
55% share assigned to the developer (Defendant No. 5).
The defendants reject all allegations made by the plaintiff as false and emphasize that they are not
responsible for any actions taken by Defendant No. 6.
Finally, the defendants request the court to dismiss the lawsuit against them and impose costs on the
plaintiff.
Interim Application (IA) NO:1
filed by a proposed objector, M. Prasanna Kumar, in a legal case involving a property dispute. The
IA is filed by M. Prasanna Kumar, who claims to be the rightful owner of certain properties that are
part of a legal dispute between Sri. Manish (the decree holder) and Ramakrishna and others (the
judgment debtors).
Prasanna Kumar states that he owns an apartment and other properties in Bengaluru. He claims
these properties were sold to him by previous owners who no longer wanted them.
He is asking the court to allow him to participate in the ongoing case because he believes he has a
stake in the property and wants to protect his rights.
Kumar argues that:
- He has invested money into the properties.
- The properties are currently rented out, and he has been managing them.
- He feels that the decree holder and judgment debtors are trying to harm him financially and
emotionally by excluding him from the case.

Objections to the IA No:2

The decree holder (Manish) argues that Kumar’s application should not be allowed because he is
not connected to the original case or the parties involved.
The decree holder points out that there has already been a long legal battle (O.S. No. 1380/2009)
regarding the property, and Kumar was not involved in that case.
The decree holder claims that Kumar’s application is an attempt to distract from the ongoing case
and that Kumar has no real ownership rights. They suggest that Kumar’s sale deed is questionable
and was created improperly.
The decree holder states that if Kumar has any claims, he should pursue them separately in court
rather than trying to join this case.

The Interim Application (IA) No:3

is a request made by Sri. Manish (the decree holder) to the court regarding a legal case involving
judgment debtors (Ramakrishna and others).

1. Manish is asking the court for permission to serve legal notices to two judgment debtors (No. 3
and No. 5) by affixing a copy of the notice on their house. This is because they are not
responding to the notices delivered to them directly.
3

2. Manish states that judgment debtors No. 3 and No. 5 are living at the addresses provided in the
application.
3. Despite this, they are intentionally avoiding receiving legal notices, which makes it difficult for
Manish to proceed with his case.
Since the judgment debtors are not cooperating, Manish requests the court to allow him to use an
alternative method (affixture) to ensure they receive the notice. This means putting the notice on
their property to officially inform them of the legal proceedings.
Manish argues that if the court does not allow this application, he will face significant difficulties in
pursuing his case. In contrast, he believes that the judgment debtors will not suffer any hardship if
the application is granted.

The Interim Application (IA) No:4

in this document is a request made by Manish, the decree holder, to the court regarding the
judgment debtors (Sri. P. Ramakrishna and others).
Manish is asking the court to allow him to notify two judgment debtors (No. 3 and No. 5) by
publishing a notice in a daily newspaper called "Kannada Prabha." This is necessary because the
judgment debtors are avoiding direct service of legal notices.

- Manish states that he has already filed an execution petition against the judgment debtors.
- He mentions that these debtors are living at the address given in the legal documents but are
intentionally not accepting the summons (legal notices) being served to them.
- Since the judgment debtors are avoiding receiving notices, Manish believes it’s necessary to
publish the notice in a newspaper to ensure they are informed about the legal proceedings.
- Manish argues that publishing the notice will not cause any hardship to the judgment debtors. In
contrast, if his request is not granted, he will face significant difficulties and inconveniences in
pursuing his case.

The Interim Application (IA) No:5

This document is a request made by R. Guruprasad, who is identified as Judgment Debtor No. 4, in
a legal case involving Manish (the decree holder) and other judgment debtors.
Guruprasad is asking the court to set aside a previous order that was made without his presence (an
ex-parte order). He wants to be allowed to participate in the case and to file a legal document called
a "Vakalathnama," which officially appoints his lawyer to represent
4

He emphasizes that his failure to show up in court was not intentional or deliberate; it was due to
genuine personal circumstances.
Guruprasad states that he believes he has a good chance of winning the case if he is allowed to
participate. He argues that if his request is not granted, he will face significant hardship.
He assures the court that allowing his application will not harm the decree holder (Manish) in any
way.

The Interim Application (IA) NO:6

in this document is a request made by M. Prasanna Kumar, who is the proposed objector in a legal
case involving Manish (the decree holder) and Ramakrishna and others (the judgment debtors).
- Prasanna Kumar is asking the court to allow him to provide certain documents that are important
for his case. He is requesting that any delays in submitting these documents be excused.
- Prasanna states that he is the rightful owner of the property in question and that both the decree
holder (Manish) and the judgment debtors (Ramakrishna and others) know about his ownership.
However, he feels that he has not been included in the proceedings.
- He explains that he was unable to present his documents earlier due to the COVID-19 pandemic
but is now ready to submit them for the court's consideration.
- Prasanna argues that if his request is not granted, he will suffer significant harm. He believes that
allowing him to submit the documents will not negatively impact the other party.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Case Type: Execution Petition (Ex. Petition No. 1248/2017)

Parties:
Decree Holder: Sri. Manish
Judgment Debtors: Sri. Ramakrishna & Others

Court Jurisdiction:
• The case originates from the City Civil Court, which has jurisdiction over civil matters as per the
Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964.
• The case is an execution petition filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 specifically under
Order 21, which deals with the execution of decrees
5

• The summons issued to the judgment debtors is in accordance with Order 21 Rule 37 of the CPC,
which mandates that the judgment debtor be summoned to show cause why he should not be
committed to civil
• The presence of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder for the judgment debtors indicates
compliance with provisions allowing representation in civil matters, as outlined in the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and relevant sections of the CPC.
• The schedule of properties mentioned reflects the specific assets involved in the execution
proceedings. This is crucial for the enforcement of the decree as per the provisions laid out in
Section 51 of the CPC, which discusses the powers of the court in executing decrees.
• The document warns that failure to appear may lead to an ex-parte decision. This is consistent
with Order 9 Rule 6 of the CPC, which provides for proceedings in absence of a party.
• In Written Statement Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) Order VIII, Rule 1
• This rule mandates that the defendant shall, within 30 days, present their written statement in
reply to the plaint.
• In the matter there is mention of Misjoinder of Parties,In Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order I,
Rule 9 This provision allows the court to strike out names of parties improperly joined.
• The matter involves an execution case under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Specifically, the
application is made under Order 21 Rule 99, which allows a person against whom a decree is
sought to file objections.The proposed objector is applying to be included in the proceedings as
per Order 21 Rule 99 of the CPC, which permits a party who claims an interest in the property to
be made a party to the proceedings. This is important for ensuring that all interested parties have a
chance to present their claims.
• In the case Execution of Decrees Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order XXI, Rule 22 has been
stated This rule allows the decree holder to seek the execution of a decree against judgment
debtors, including procedures for serving notices.
• In One of the IA there was a request for Substituted Service Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order
V, Rule 20 This provision permits substituted service of summons when the judgment debtor
cannot be served in the ordinary manner, including affixture.
• Publication in Newspaper:
The request to publish the notice in the ‘Kannada Prabha’ newspaper is a standard practice
for substituted service. The choice of a local newspaper is consistent with the requirement to
ensure that the judgment debtors receive notice of the proceedings.
• Finality of the Decree:
6

In one of the affidavit it asserts that the judgment debtors have not appealed the decree and
that there is no stay against it. This establishes the decree's finality under Section 96 of the
CPC, which discusses appeals.

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
During my visit to collect certified copies, I encountered several challenges. The biggest challenge
was language and communication but at times, staff members and officials were very cooperative,
guiding me through the process and ensuring they understood the requirements for obtaining
certified copies. As a student, I emphasized the importance of these copies for my assessment.
However, I observed a significant communication gap between the copying branch and the pending
branch. Staff at the pending branch claimed that the files had been sent, while those at the copying
branch stated they had not yet received them due to this lack of communication.

Throughout my interactions with court personnel, I experienced a mix of helpfulness and

unprofessionalism. While some staff were polite and supportive, others communicated in a harsh
manner, making it challenging for me to clarify my doubts. Additionally, I faced difficulties in
getting my affidavit notarized because I lacked cash for the payment. Although I had sufficient
funds in my mobile payment account, the poor network connectivity in the court premises hindered
the transaction. Towards the end of my visit, I also experienced delays in obtaining my certified
copies, having to wait for hours while the necessary signatures were completed.

CONCLUSION
The case pertain to legal proceedings in the City Civil Court of Bengaluru, focusing on an execution
petition filed by the decree holder, Sri. Manish, against judgment debtors, including Sri.
Ramakrishna and others. The key issues arise from the judgment debtors’ alleged avoidance of
service, prompting the decree holder to seek substituted service via affixture.
The proceedings are grounded in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly
regarding the execution of decrees and the methods of service.
The affidavit submitted by the decree holder outlines the necessity for substituted service due to the
judgment debtors’ deliberate evasion, thereby justifying the request.
7

The decree holder argues that allowing substituted service is crucial to prevent undue hardship to
himself, while the judgment debtors would not suffer significant inconvenience if the application is
granted.

Given the circumstances presented in the documents, the court may reach the following
conclusions:

1. The court is likely to grant the application for substituted service by affixture, as the decree
holder has provided sufficient justification for this request. The judgment debtors’ avoidance of
service creates a need for alternative methods to ensure they receive notice of the proceedings.

2. The court might issue an order directing that a copy of the notice be affixed to the residence of
the judgment debtors to ensure they are made aware of the execution proceedings.

3. The court may also set a timeline for the judgment debtors to respond or appear in court after
being served through affixture, thereby ensuring that the decree holder's rights are protected while
adhering to the principles of natural justice.
8