- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33678 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. VENKATESHAPPA @ MARIAYPPA S/O LATE DODDAKURERU RAMANNA R/AT M. SATHYAAVARA VILLAGE, HASIGALA POST, SULIELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TLAUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 114 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE DODDEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT KAMBALIPURA VILLAGE, HASIGALA POST, SULIBELE HOLI, HOSKOTE TLAUK, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 143 2. SRI. KEMPANNA S/O LATE DODDEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 3. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR’S 3A. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3B. SRI.RAMU S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 3C. SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3D. SRI.PRAKASH S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3E. SRI.RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NO. 3 (A TO E) ALL ARE R/AT M.SATHYAVARA VILLAGE HASIGALA POST, SULIBELE HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 3F. SMT.ARUNA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT YASHWANTHPURA VILLAGE AND POST MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 4. SRI. CHIKKAMARIYAPPA S/O LATE DODDEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 5. SMT. PILLAMMA DIED HER LRS 5A. CHIKKAPPAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 5B. S.C.RAMACHANDRA DEAD BY LRS 5B(a) SMT.SUJATHAMMA W/O LATE S.C.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5B(b) SRI.KISHORA S/O LATE S.C.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 5B(c) SRI.NAVEENKUMAR S/O LATE S.C.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. S.C. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ARE ALL RESIDNG AT M. SATHYAVARA VILLAGE, HASIGALA POST, SULIBELE HOBI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 114. …RESPONDENTS (V/O/D 21/1/2025, R3 (A)- SMT.LAKSHMAMMA R3 (B)- RAMU R3 (C)- MANJUNATHA R3 (D)- PRAKASH R3 (E)- RAVIKUMAR R3 (F)- ARUNA R5 (B)(a)- SUJATHAMMA R5 (B)(b)- KISHORA R5 (B)(c)- NAVEEN KUMAR PRAPOSED R5 (B)(a), R5 (B) (b), R5 (B)(c)- ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 12/11/24 NOTICE TO R3 (A, B, C & E) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 23/11/24 NOTICE TO R3 (F) IS HELD SUFFICIENT SRI.NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 R5 (A) & R6) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ERRONEOUS ORDER DATED: 04.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-H PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSKOTE, IN EXECUTION NO.16/2015 ERRONEOUS ORDER IN APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC, 1908 VIDE ANNEXURE- F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection in Execution No.16/2015 dated 04.07.2017 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hoskote, petitioner/Decree Holder is before this Court. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the suit for permanent injunction and the suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 02.09.2014. On the ground that the Judgment Debtor is interfering in spite of a judgment and decree granted by the Court, he has moved an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking police protection to the Decree Holder and his property. Initially, an ex-parte order was passed by the Court. Thereafter, on an application filed by the plaintiff and by the Judgement Debtor, the said order came to be set aside. 3. The trial Court by way of order impugned has observed that the Civil Court has no power to grant protection to a person. As the Judgement Debtors No.1 to 4 and 6 were placed ex-parte, on the basis of substituted service through paper publication, as they are necessary parties to the present petition, they are also entitled to have an opportunity to say in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 the matter. Hence, the Court held that their application appears to show good cause for their previous non appearance and accordingly application filed by the Judgement Debtors was allowed on cost of Rs.1,000/-, order placing the Judgement Debtors No.1 to 4 and 6 ex-parte was set aside. The Court has also observed that as already the execution petition is pending, at this stage, unless and until the same is decided, the application of the Decree Holder for police protection cannot be considered. Aggrieved thereby, the Decree Holder is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Decree Holder submits that when the Judgement Debtor is violating the judgement and decree passed by the Court, the Court had failed to grant police protection and had rejected the application. While setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the Executing Court, it is submitted that unless and until police protection is granted, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner/Decree Holder and all these aspects were not considered by the Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ Judgement Debtors submits that when the Execution Petition itself is pending, question of granting police protection in an application filed under Section 151 is not maintainable. He submits that when there is a specific provision under the CPC, he cannot maintain application under Section 151 of CPC and cannot invoke the inherent powers of the Court. It is submitted that the Court had rightly considered and passed the order. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The Decree Holder has filed the Execution Petition. Initially, the Judgement Debtor is set ex-parte and thereafter, the application is filed to set aside that order and the Court had set aside the order on cost of Rs.1,000/-. Pending Execution Petition, the petitioner's application for police protection cannot be considered by the Court and the Court has to consider the Execution Petition itself. The finding of the Court on that aspect is perfectly legal and valid. Then coming to the police protection sought for the person, as rightly observed by the Court, there cannot be any police protection for the person. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3994 WP No. 33678 of 2017 does not warrant any interference from this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Considering the fact that the judgement and decree is passed on 02.09.2014 and the Execution Petition is filed in the year 2015, the main Execution Petition itself shall be disposed off within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order basing on the material placed before the Court. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. iii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2