- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100009 OF 2025 (-) BETWEEN: 1. MOTHILALSA S/O. SOMANATHASA KHODE SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. RAJU S/O. MITHILALSA KHODE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JODA-MARUTI TEMPLE, DIST: GADAG. 2. GANESH S/O. MOTHILALSA KHODE, AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KOPPAL DIST KOPPAL. 3. RAJESHWARI D/O. MOTHILALSA KHODE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JODA-MARUTI TEMPLE, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BALADAS S/O. VITHAL AMEECHAND AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TENGINAKAI BAZAR, BETIGERI, DIST GADAG – 580028. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 2. BHAVANDAS S/O. VITHAL AMEECHAND AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NEAR JOD-MARUTI TEMPLE, DIST: GADAG – 580028. …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS. VINAYA KUPPELLUR, & SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATES) ----- THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EP NO.115/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, GADAG AND BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 IN EP 115/2022 BY ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This Revision Petition is filed by the JDR No.1(a) to (c) challenging the order dated 17.01.2025 in Execution Petition No.115 of 2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag, rejecting the objections raised by the JDR/petitioners herein. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 3. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that, the respondent herein has filed OS No. 9 of 2009 against the defendants (JDRs) and the petitioners herein (JDRs) have filed OS No.79 of 2007 before the Trial Court seeking relief of declaration and other consequential relief. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 25.03.2009 decreed the suit in OS No.9 of 2009 filed by the respondents herein and directed the defendants (JDRs) to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. The suit filed by the petitioners herein (JDRs) in OS NO.79 of 2007 came to be dismissed. The said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was tested before the First Appellate Court in RA No.28 and 29 of 2009 before the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag and both the appeals came to be dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree in OS No.9 of 2009 and in OS No.79 of 2007 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 by the First Appellate Court by judgment and decree 18.04.2012. The said judgment and decree passed by the courts below was confirmed by this Court in RSA No.5762 and 5763 of 2012 dated 06.02.2014 and same came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.14717 and 14718 of 2016. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have filed Execution Petition No.115 of 2022 before the Trial Court and same was questioned by the JDRs by filing the objections that, the Execution Petition is barred by time. The said objection was over-ruled by the Executing Court by impugned order dated 17.01.2025 and feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. 4. I heard Miss. Vinaya Kuppelur learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. C.S.Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/caveator. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 5. Miss. Vinaya Kuppelur, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the Executing Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that, the decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit is executable as the period of 12 years has elapsed and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratansingh vs. Vijaysingh in Civil Appeal No.7194 of 2000 disposed of on 11.12.2000 and contended that, the limitation period has to be counted from the date of judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. C.S. Shettar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited the attention of the court to the Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and contended that, the recurring - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 period has to be considered for the purpose of applicability of the Limitation Act and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. In this regard, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akkayanaicker vs. A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu and another reported in (2004) 12 SCC 469 and argued that the decree will become executable only after the same has attained finality. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not dispute that, the petitioners (JDRs) have suffered the judgment and decree in the Original suit, regular appeal, Regular Second Appeal and appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP Nos.14717 and 14718 of 2016. In that view of the matter as the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.9 of 2009 and OS No.79 of 2007 was confirmed by - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3123 CRP No. 100009 of 2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court SLP Nos.14717 and 14718 of 2016 and the Execution Petition is filed within 12 years from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the decree be enforceable only after the same has reached finality and therefore, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is only with regard to the dismissal of the application filed by the appellant therein for condonation of delay and same cannot be accepted for the facts on hand. However in the present case judgment and decree was questioned and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the courts below. Accordingly, Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24