High Court dismisses application to substitute land with personal guarantee as security, upholding original order.

The application seeking to substitute land with a personal guarantee as security was dismissed by the High Court, upholding the original order for land as security until the debt is settled. The respondents' obstacles were deemed insufficient, and the application was considered not maintainable due to res judicata, as the issues had already been decided and could not be re-agitated. The Board's decision to dismiss the application on 18th February 2015 was based on the lack of power to review its own order, leading to its rejection without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application to substitute land with personal guarantee as security.
2. Maintainability of the application and res judicata.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case is the application filed by the petitioners seeking permission to substitute the land at Mantankurichi Village with a personal guarantee as security. The original order dated 11.01.2012 directed the petitioners to offer their land as security until the amount due to the 2nd respondent is discharged. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka upheld this decision as an interim arrangement until the amount payable is settled. The respondents have been creating obstacles to hinder the implementation of the order. The petitioners argue that the security should be released once the order is fully implemented. The 2nd respondent, on the other hand, contends that the application is not maintainable, as the Board does not have the power to review its own order. The respondents claim that the issues raised have already been adjudicated by the High Court and are thus barred by res judicata.

2. The second issue revolves around the maintainability of the application and the doctrine of res judicata. The 2nd respondent argues that the present application seeks to challenge the same issues that were already decided by the High Court in a previous order. The High Court's decision affirmed the Board's order regarding the creation of security over the land. The respondents claim that the petitioners cannot re-agitate the issue as it has already been adjudicated and has attained finality. They argue that allowing the substitution of the security with a personal guarantee would prejudice their interests. The Board, after hearing both parties, dismissed the application, stating that it was an attempt to review the original order, which the Board does not have the power to do. The application was deemed meritless and futile, leading to its dismissal without costs on 18th February 2015.

---