- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11091 WP No. 29259 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 29259 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHYAMASUNDAR RAO, S/O RAMAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MARDOLI HOUSE, NARIKOMBU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574 259. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKAS M, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE, BRANCH OFICE AT MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, GOPI CIRCLE, NEHARU ROAD, SHIMOGA - 570 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER K.N. ANAND. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11091 WP No. 29259 of 2019 DTD 1.7.2019 PASSED IN EX CASE NO.114/2011 IN THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K. MANGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is judgment debtor No.1 in Execution proceedings in Execution case No.114/2011 is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2019, by which his objection to the notice that was issued under Section 51 R/w Order XXI Rule 37 of CPC, came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the records, more particularly, the reasons assigned in the impugned order at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 submits that even according to the Trial Court, the petitioner herein was required to point out the properties - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11091 WP No. 29259 of 2019 belonging to him and only after exhausting the means of realizing the money from sale of the proceeds, could the respondent seek for arrest of the petitioner. He further submits that since the properties, which even according to the respondents have not been sold even on this date, the action of arresting the petitioner is unjustified and illegal. 3. Hence Executing Court erred in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. On a specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner/judgment debtor No.1 does not own any property in his individual name. He however, submits that there are certain properties, which belong to the family and stands in the name of his mother, who is also one of the judgment debtors. 4. A perusal of the records and submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that petitioner does not seem to be owning any property in his name. One of the modes of recovery of the decreetal amount is civil imprisonment in the event of no other - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11091 WP No. 29259 of 2019 options available, which is what the Executing Court seem to have come to the conclusion, while rejecting the application. 5. Notwithstanding the above, it is open for the petitioner herein to specifically point out the properties, which are standing in his name and bring the same to the notice of the Trial Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, if the petitioner fails to point out an bring to the notice of the Executing Court, the properties which are standing in his name, whether movable or immovable, which can be sold and the proceeds of which can be adjusted towards the decreetal amount, the order requires to be reconsidered, if in the event of failure of the petitioner to furnish such details, and if there are no properties available, Executing Court shall proceed in accordance with law pursuant to the order already passed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11091 WP No. 29259 of 2019 With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT: BHK