SHRI DUNDAPPA S/O PARAPPA LAXETTI vs SHRI MANOHAR SO DUNDAPPA DAYANNAVAR

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL


WRIT PETITION NO. 109487 OF 2025 (GM-CON)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 108967 OF 2025 (GM-CON)

IN WP NO. 109487/2025:



BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. DUNDAPPA S/O PARAPPA LAXETTI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. 434, KAMBAR GALLI, GHATAPRABHA,
GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591306.

2. SHRI GANGADHAR
S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA HUNAGUNDA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. BASAVNAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.

3. SHRI REVAPPA S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA KAMBAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR MRUTYUNJAYA CIRCLE,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.








Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench

4. SMT. GIRIJA W/O UMESH BADDI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. PARTNER,
R/O. NEAR HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591306.

5. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O DUNDAPPA LAXETTI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



R/O. NEAR HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:





1.
SHRI MANOHAR
S/O DUNDAPPA DAYANNAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY ITS LR’S.,

SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O MANOHAR DAYANNAVAR,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. H.NO.874, DANESHWAR NAGAR,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.

2. SHRI SURENDRA S/O MANOHAR DAYANNAVAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.874, DANESHWAR NAGAR,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
3. SMT. MANJULA W/O KOTARBASAV RAJENDR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. H.NO.1307/12,
SHIVASHANKARASWAMI BADAVANE,
COCONUT GARDER, DAVANAGERE,
TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577005.

4. SHRI RAVINDR S/O MANOHAR DAYANNAVAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO.874, DANESHWAR NAGAR,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ON THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09-07-2024 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BELAGAVI IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.123/2023
(CRIMINAL) IN CC NO.645/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR
AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.11, 6, 5, 8
AND 9 AND ETC.,

IN WP NO. 108967/2025:
BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. DUNDAPPA S/O PARAPPA LAXETTI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. 434, KAMBAR GALLI, GHATAPRABHA,
GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591306.

2. SHRI GANGADHAR
S/O SHIVASHANKARAPPA HUNAGUNDA,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. BASAVNAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.

3. SHRI REVAPPA S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA KAMBAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR MRUTYUNJAYA CIRCLE,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.

4. SMT. GIRIJA W/O UMESH BADDI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC. PARTNER,
R/O. NEAR HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK, BELAGAVI-591306.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



5. SMT. MAHANANDA W/O DUNDAPPA LAXETTI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. NEAR HARAGANNAVAR HOSPITAL,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI MANOHAR S/O DUNDAPPA DAYANNAVAR,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S.,

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O MANOHAR DAYANNAVAT,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED,
R/O. H.NO.874, DANESHWAR NAGAR,
GHATAPRABHA, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI ON THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BELAGAVI IN EXECUTION APPLICATION
NO.124/2023(CRIMINAL) IN CC NO.646/2021, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



ORAL ORDER


1. The common petitioners in these two writ petitions are
before this Court being aggrieved by the orders dated
09.07.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Belagavi (“District Commission”
for short), in Execution Application Nos.123/2023 and
124/2023, arising out of C.C. Nos.645/2021 and
646/2021, respectively.

2. From perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that
the Commission has permitted the applications filed by
the respondent-complainant under Section 317(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to split up
the proceedings and conduct separate trials in respect of
the petitioners herein, while proceeding against the
other accused separately.

3. It is this order which has constrained the petitioners to
approach this Court.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025




4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
procedure adopted by the Commission in splitting up the
proceedings merely on the basis of an application filed
under Section 317(2) of the Cr.P.C. is contrary to the
settled principles of law. It is contended that, before
splitting up the proceedings and conducting a separate
trial, the Commission ought to have satisfied itself that
the necessary steps, including issuance of proclamation,
had been taken to secure the presence of the accused
who was absent. It is further contended that, without
following the procedure prescribed by law and recording
the requisite satisfaction, the Commission could not
have passed the impugned orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order
of the Division Bench of this Court in Mac Charles (I)
Ltd., Vs. Chandrashekhar and Another reported in
ILR 2005 Karnataka 3648 contend that the order
impugned in this petition splitting up the matter to be
tried separately as regards accused No.4 is concerned is

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



bad in law without the District Commission resorting to
coercive methods like issue of warrants and
proclamation in the manner contemplated under the
provisions of Cr.P.C. He further submits that accused
No.4 is the main person responsible for answering the
award as the petitioners herein were only the sleeping
partners of the firm against whom the award has been
passed and accused No.4 has been deliberately kept out
of the reach of the Court in collusion with the
complainants only to target the petitioners herein.
Hence seeks for allowing the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submits that the award passed by the District
Commission directing the petitioners and the accused
No.4 to pay a sum of Rs.6,06,625/- and Rs.7,93,500/-
respectively in both the petitions has attained finality
and that the said award directs payment of the said
amount jointly and severally by all the parties.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioners cannot have

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



any grievance whether or not the proceedings are split
or tried together as their responsibility to pay the
amount jointly and severally. He further submits that
the reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is not applicable to the facts in hand
inasmuch as the proceeding therein was pertaining to
offence punishable under the provisions of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. The same cannot be applied
in the instant case. He further submits that the
petitioners are not in any manner affected by the order
impugned in these proceedings. As such, they have no
locus-standi in the matter. Hence seeks for dismissal of
the petition.

7. Heard. Perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the award passed by the District
Commission directing the petitioners herein and one
Shrishailayya son of Dundayya Sindholimath, who was
arrayed as accused No. 4 in Execution Application
Nos.123/2023 and 124/2023 has attained finality. In

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



terms of the said award, petitioners and the said person
were directed to pay the award amount to the
respondents herein jointly and severally. The said
awards have not been honored till date. Proceedings
under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
(“the Act 2019” for short), have been initiated, which
provide for penalty for non-compliance of the order. It is
in these proceedings the impugned order has been
passed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, though vehemently
relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court submitted that the procedure adopted by District
Commission in splitting up the trial contemplated
Section 72 of the Act 2019 is bad in law for non-
compliance of purported pre-requisites of taking
coercive steps in the nature of proclamation, the fact
remains, the award passed by the District Commission
has remained unsatisfied. Necessary to note provisions
under Section 72 of the Act 2019 are in addition to the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



provision provided under Section 71 of the Act 2019
therein.

10. Sections 71 and 72 of the Act, 2019 are extracted
hereunder.
“71. Enforcement of Orders of District
Commission, State Commission and National
Commission.- Every order made by a District
Commission, State Commission or the National
Commission shall be enforced by it in the same
manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a
suit before it and the provisions of Order XXI of the
First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
shall, as far as may be, applicable, subject to the
modification that every reference therein to the
decree shall be construed as reference to the order
made under this Act.
72. penalty for non-compliance of order. - (1)
Whoever fails to comply with any order made by
the District Commission or the State Commission or
the National Commission, as the case may be, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than one month, but which may
extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not
be less than twenty-five thousand rupees, but
which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the District
Commission, the State Commission or the National
Commission, as the case may be, shall have the
power of a Judicial Magistrate of first class for the
trial of offences under sub-section (1), and on
conferment of such powers, the District Commission
or the State Commission or the National
Commission, as the case may be, shall be deemed

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



to be a Judicial Magistrate of first class for the
purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) Save as otherwise provided, the offences under
sub-section (1) shall be tried summarily by the
District Commission or the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be.”


11. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, though at the first blush, appears to be
acceptable to the extent procedure adopted by the
District Commission in splitting up the cases, that by
itself as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondents would not give a cause of action to the
petitioners before this Court. Even if, such an order is
set aside, the liability of the petitioners to honour the
award passed would still remain. Section 72 is a
provision provided in addition to Section 71 of the Act
2019 and not in default of Section 71 of the Act 2019. In
that sense, petitioners cannot have any grievance for
splitting up the matter.

12. Nonetheless the District Commission is required to
satisfy itself that procuring the presence of accused No.4

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



in the normal circumstances was ineffective and
therefore it had resorted to splitting up of the
proceedings. The impugned order does not indicate any
such reason being assigned.

13. Therefore the orders impugned in both the writ petitions
are quashed . Matters are remitted to the District
Commission, which shall reconsider the application filed
under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C., filed by the respondents
by satisfying itself whether in the normal course
presence of accused No.4 could be procured. It shall
keep in mind the proposition of law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mac Charles
(I) Ltd., (Supra), while reconsidering the said
application.

14. It is made clear that, this order shall not absolve the
petitioners herein from their responsibility of making the
payment of the award amount. They shall show their
bona fides of making the payment, since the award is

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17746
WP No. 109487 of 2025
C/W WP No. 108967 of 2025

CNR: KAHC020236572025



admittedly one directing the parties to pay the amount
jointly and severally.

15. With the above observation writ petitions are allowed .



Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


VB para: 1-4
EM 5 to till end
CT:BCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 44