- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12987 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. P. SHOBHA RANI, W/O LATE P S RAVI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.173/10, PALACE LOWER ORCHARDS EXTENSION, SADHASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M N UDAYASHANKAR, S/O SRI M NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.98, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSORE-570 023. 2. SRI B SIDDHARTH, S/O SRI S BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 3RD CROSS, LOWER PALACE ORCHARDS, SADHASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 003. ALSO R/AT ATULYA RESIDENTIAL FALTS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 3RD FLOOR, SY NO.99, 4TH CROSS, Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 R.K.TOWN, YARANDAHALLI, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560 105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 IS D/W, V/O DATED 08.06.2021) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.2018 PASSED IN EX.NO.3146/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Execution Case No.3146/2017 by the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-K. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Suit in OS No.4558/2015 was filed by respondent No.1 herein against respondent No.2 herein seeking the relief of specific performance of the registered agreement for sale dated 20.11.2014. The said suit was decreed on 04.08.2017. It is not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 in dispute that judgment and decree passed in OS No.4558/2015 has attained finality. Execution Case No.3146/2017 is filed by the decree holder in OS No.4558/2015 to execute the decree passed in the said suit. The Executing Court vide the order impugned dated 22.09.2018 has issued delivery warrant for delivery of the possession of the suit schedule premises by breaking open the lock with the help of jurisdictional police if necessary and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner who has filed IA Nos.4 to 6 in Execution Case No.3146/2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC, under Order XXI Rule 97 to Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC and under Section 151 of CPC respectively, is before this Court challenging the order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Execution Case No.3146/2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has purchased the suit schedule property from the judgment debtor, who is none other than her nephew for a valid sale consideration and she is in occupation and possession of the said property ever since the execution of the Sale Deed. The Executing Court without appreciating this aspect of the matter, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 without passing any orders on IA Nos.4 to 6 has passed the order impugned which is illegal. She, accordingly, prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent submits that petitioner's application filed in order to implead her in OS No.4558/2015 was earlier rejected and the said order has attained finality. Petitioner does not claim any independent right over the suit schedule property and on the other hand, she claims right through the judgment debtor in OS No.4558/2015 and therefore, her objections raised under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 read with Section 151 of CPC are not at all maintainable. He submits that decree is already executed and decree holder has been put in possession of the suit schedule property and the Sale Deed is also executed in favour of the Decree Holder through the process of Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram and Others - (2008) 7 SCC 144. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 6. OS No.4558/2015 was filed on 30.05.2015 seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 20.11.2014. Respondent No.2 herein, namely B Siddharth, was the sole defendant in OS No.4558/2015. Petitioner claims right over the suit schedule property under a registered Sale Deed said to have been executed by B. Siddharth in her favour on 17.08.2015, which is after the filing of suit in OS No.4558/2015. IA No.4 is filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Executing Court in Execution Case No.3146/2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of CPC and IA No. 5 is filed under Order XXI Rule 97 to Rule 101 read with Section 151 of CPC. IA No. 6 is filed under Section 151 of CPC, wherein a prayer is made to recall the order dated 22.09.2018 passed in Execution Case No.3146/2017 and direct that possession be handed over to the objector. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit schedule property and the possession of the suit schedule property has been already handed over to the decree holder in OS No.4558/2015 and thereby the order impugned has been already implemented. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44439 WP No. 12987 of 2019 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Sinha (supra), has observed that a person purchasing property from the judgment debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right over the property to resist, obstruct or object execution of a decree. Since the order impugned under which the Trial Court has issued delivery warrant for delivery of the possession of the suit schedule premises by breaking open the lock with the help of the jurisdictional police, if necessary, has been already implemented and in view of the judgment in the case of Usha Sinha (supra), I am of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be interfered with. IA Nos.4 to 6 which is filed by the petitioner is said to be pending consideration before Executing Court. Therefore, the following order:- 8. The writ petition is dismissed. The Executing Court shall dispose off IA Nos.4 to 6 filed by the petitioner in Execution Case No.3146/2017 on its merits as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24