- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1405 WP No. 100476 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100476 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DODDA HANUMAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA HARIJAN, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE. 2. SRI. SANNA HANUMAPPA S/O. LAXMAPPA HARIJAN, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, BOTH ARE R/O. BASAPUR (GINIGERA), TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O. ARAVIND GOUDAR, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD. 2. ASHWINI D/O. ARAVIND GOUDAR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK. 3. SIDDARTH S/O. ARAVIND GOUDAR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, ALL ARE B.T. PATIL NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS-DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, TO QUASH THE ORDER ON I.A. NO. 6 AND 7 DATED. 28/03/2024 AND ORDER ON IA NO. 12 DATED. 08/01/2025 PASSED ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.27 16:33:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1405 WP No. 100476 of 2025 THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM KOPPAL IN EX. CASE NO. 13/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of proposed order to be passed. 2. Petitioners are before this court seeking for the following reliefs : (a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, to quash the order on I.A.No.6 and 7 dated 28/03/2024 and order on IA.No.12 dated 08/01/2025 passed the learned Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Koppal in Ex.Case No.13/2017 vide Annexure-G and J. 3. The respondents/Decree holders had filed Execution Case No.13 of 2017 to execute the Decree passed in O.S.No.94 of 2013. By virtue of which, respondents herein were declared to be the owners of the land in Sy.no.67/3 and the defendants were directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the land measuring 20 guntas described in the suit schedule of the plaint within 60 days. The petitioners had - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1405 WP No. 100476 of 2025 appeared in the said suit, but had not filed their written statement, leading to the Decree having been passed. 4. On filing of the Execution Petition, the petitioners had filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.5/2017 under Order IX Rule 13 of the code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte Decree. The said civil miscellaneous petition also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. An application has been filed in Civil Misc.No.12/2023 to recall the said order, which is pending. 5. In the meanwhile, in the execution petition, the Bailiff was directed to inspect the property. I.A.Nos.6 and 7 had been filed by the Decree Holders to direct the Judgement Debtors to deliver the possession or the order in the alternative to direct the Court Bailiff to get the property demarcated and handover the suit land. The said applications came to be allowed vide order dated 01.06.2024. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1405 WP No. 100476 of 2025 6. The Bailiff being unable to vacate the Judgment Debtors on account of the opposition of the Judgement Debtors, who had submitted report. In furtherance of which, I.A.no.12 was filed seeking for Police Protection, which also came to be allowed vide order dated 08.01.2025. It is challenging all these three orders, petitioners are before this Court. 7. A decree having been passed in the year 2016 is awaiting execution. Though the execution petition has been filed in the year 2017, the petitioners who are defendants have had entered appearance in the suit have chosen not to contest the suit. Subsequently, a Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, which also came to be dismissed for non prosecution. The conduct of the petitioners both in the suit and in the execution petition categorically indicates that the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners to conduct the proceedings under the intention only to protract the proceedings. The said proceedings having attained finality. I am of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1405 WP No. 100476 of 2025 considered opinion that the orders passed on I.A.nos.6, 7 and 12 are proper, there being obstruction by the Judgment Debtors in handing over the possession, the executing Court has rightly granted police protection. I do not find any infirmity in passing all the three orders. There being no grounds made out. Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45