Karnataka HC Bars Police From Breaking Lock At Elderly Couple’s Home, But Allows Court Commissioner To Inspect Property

In brief

The question

1. Whether the stay on drawing up the final decree proceedings prevented the FDP Court from proceeding with a Court Commissioner’s inspection of the petition-schedule property.

The court held

The petition was disposed of without quashing the impugned order in its entirety.

It also directed

The FDP Court was directed not to give effect to the order on I.A. No. 34 insofar as it directed the police to break open the door. It could give effect to I.A. No. 33 and proceed with the Commissioner’s inspection, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate without obstruction.

Notice to the respondents was dispensed with because no adverse order was made against them.

01Facts

Respondents 1–4 initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No. 9/2018 to enforce the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 34/2014. The petitioner, a respondent in the FDP, had appealed the preliminary decree in RFA No. 100096/2018. In that appeal, the High Court stayed “drawing up” of the final decree proceedings, while permitting other steps to continue.

pp. 11–12, paras 2, 7–8

In the FDP, the respondents applied under Section 151 CPC for permission to break open the lock of the petitioner’s residence so the Court Commissioner could inspect the property, and for police assistance. The FDP Court allowed both applications.

pp. 10, paras 3–4

The petitioner challenged that order, stating that he had not received the applications and was willing to cooperate with the Commissioner, but objecting to breaking open the lock.

pp. 10–11, paras 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the stay on drawing up the final decree proceedings prevented the FDP Court from proceeding with a Court Commissioner’s inspection of the petition-schedule property.

p. 12 · ¶ 8

ii.2. Whether the FDP Court’s direction for police assistance to break open the lock should be implemented when the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the inspection.

pp. 12–13, paras 8–9

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India confer the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.

p. 8

Section 151 CPC was invoked in the FDP applications seeking directions to facilitate the Commissioner’s work.

p. 10 · ¶ 3

Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC was the basis of the interim application in the pending appeal; the resulting order stayed only the drawing up of the final decree proceedings.

pp. 11–12 · ¶ 7

No precedent was cited. The Court treated the stay as permitting steps toward the final decree to continue, while restraining the drawing up of the final decree itself.

p. 12 · ¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court read the 2018 stay according to its terms: it stayed only the drawing up of the final decree, so it did not bar the FDP Court from arranging a property inspection by the Commissioner.

p. 12 · ¶ 8

However, the petitioner and his wife were elderly, and the petitioner had offered to cooperate. In those circumstances, implementing the direction to the police to break open the door would cause unnecessary hardship and prejudice; the inspection could proceed without that measure.

pp. 12–13, paras 8–9