- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 121 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. R DARSHAN S/O RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 3. KUM NIVEDITHA D/O RAVICHANDRA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER No.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.54, OLD NO 7/1, 5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, K.P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 2. SMT TULASAMMA W/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.54, OLD NO.7/1, 5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, K P AGRAHARA MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023 3. SRI RAVICHANDRA S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.38, 3RD CROSS, MUTHURAYASWAMY LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE - 560 091 AND ALSO AT NO.54, OLD NO 7/1, 5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN ROAD, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, K P AGRAHARA MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRISHAIL A. HUBLI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3 (ABSENT)) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN EX.PETITION NO.1291/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED U/O 21 RULE 97, 100 AND 101 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.G.K.Shivaprakash, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Objectors in execution petition No.1291/2017 are the revision petitioners challenging the order of executing Court dated 06.02.2018 dismissing the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 of CPC. 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. An eviction petition came to be filed by the decree-holders namely Smt.Munivenkatamma and Smt.Tulasamma against Sri.Ravichandra. Objectors are the legally wedded wife and children of said Sri.Ravichandra. Eviction petition was allowed and to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 execute the order of eviction, execution petition No.1291/2017 came to be filed. 3.2. Revision petitioners being the legally wedded wife and children of Sri.Ravichandra, approached the executing Court with an application under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 100 and 101 of CPC stating that the judgment-debtor Sri.Ravichandra was not a loyal person to the objectors and he had several other relationships and he was not staying in the petition schedule property and with an intention to deprive the right of residence of the objectors, he had clandestinely executed release deed resulting in the order of eviction which has been brought to the notice of the executing Court and wanted to protect the possession of the objectors in respect of the petition schedule property. 3.3. Said application was objected to by the decree- holders by filing detailed written objections. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 3.4. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge considered the objections stating that they were claiming under the judgment-debtor and not independent right as admittedly the judgment debtor was tenant in respect of the petition schedule property and dismissed the application filed by the objectors. 3.5. The validity of the said order is called in question in this revision petition on the following grounds: The order dated: 6-2-2018 on the I.A under Order XII Rule 97, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 of CPC passed by the court below is unjust, erroneous and has to be set aside. The provision under Order XLI followed by Rule 97, 100 and 101 complaining about the dispossession of anybody from the property when brought to the notice of the executing court, the executing court is bound to allow the same subjecting the objector to go for complete trial in order to prove their legitimate right, interest and title. In the very provision itself under Rule 101 clearly mandates that no court should insist that the party, who has approached in a destitute condition prefer separate suit and the very executing court is bond to deal with the same conclusively, contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force the executing court deemed to have jurisdiction to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 decide such question when such being the case, torder of the court below in dismissing the I.A. No.1 holding that the court has no jurisdiction is against to the settled principles of law. The court below failed to appreciate by dismissing the I.A. filed by the present Petitioners, the present Petitioners will lose the possession of the Schedule Property, further the valuable right accrued to the present Petitioners under the provisions of Order XXI will lose its sanctity. It is submitted that if the trial court by entertaining the said application could have come to know at the trial that the claim of the Petitioners is bonafide and genuine. The trial court has carried away by the pleadings of the Respondent No.1 and 2 that the Petitioners should be directed to approach the different court by filing a separate suit and has passed the erroneous orders and the same is not justified under Order XXI and other rules as putforth by the Petitioners. It is submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate once the petition Schedule Property in question is given in lieu of maintenance by the husband of Petitioner No.1 the same should have been appreciated, further would have hold as absolute property of Petitioner No. 1. The trial court had an opportunity at the instance of the present Petitioners to send a notice to the Respondent No.3 to adjudicate the question in issue without exhausting the same further has not given any opportunity. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 The trial court carried away by the pleadings of Respondent No.1 and 2 to the effect that the Respondent No.3 has contested the eviction suit but on the other hand the Petitioner No.3 who is hand-in-glove with Respondent No.1 and 2 has not at all contested remained ex- parte though the said facts are very much available in the records, the trial court has dismissed the I.A. which is unjust order. The trial court carried away by the pleadings of Respondent No.1 and 2 to the effect that the present Petitioners should have filed a petition for maintenance in the absence of the same the suit of the Petitioners herein is false but on the other hand the trial court failed to appreciate the arguments and pleadings of the Petitioners that, the Petitioners have no daily bread to sustain when such being the fact it was only an imagination to the Petitioners to approach the court of law for maintenance without having any money in hand. The trial court should be given liberty to the Petitioners to approach the court of law of proper jurisdiction, when the same is appreciated in its order rather than dismissing the very I.A. The trial court failed to appreciate the principles laid down in the reported judgments furnished by the Petitioners herein ILR 2004 KAR 705 and AIR 2008 (NOC) 2505 (Rajasthan) which stipulates an opportunity should be given for trial of the question/issues involved. The trial court failed to appreciate the pleadings and arguments of the Petitioners that the Respondents are also residing in the same property where the Petitioners are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 residing, further the Respondents are well aware that the family of the objectors and Respondent No.3 are strained, further the Respondent No.3 is staying away from the objectors/Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that the decree is a collusive decree and judgment debtor wanted to deceive the objectors from the right of residence as he was not staying with the objectors in the petition schedule property. 5. Said factual aspect of the matter is not appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the execution proceeding resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 7. As such, this Court perused the material on record meticulously in the light of the arguments putforth on behalf of the revision petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 8. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly the decree that is sought to be executed in the execution petition is that of the eviction decree. 9. Further, objectors claim that they being the legally wedded wife and children of the judgment-debtor Sri.Ravi Chandra are having independent right to oppose the execution proceedings inasmuch as said Sri.Ravi Chandra did not stay with the objectors and he was staying with another lady and was having illicit relationship with her. Therefore, in order to deceive the right of residence, he has actively colluded with the decree holders and eviction decree came to be passed. 10. Such an enquiry is impermissible before the executing Court inasmuch as no independent right is sought to be canvassed before the executing Court so as to entertain the application under Order XXI Rule 97 or Rule 100 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40745 CRP No. 121 of 2018 11. It is crystal clear that the objectors are none other than the legally wedded wife and children of original judgment debtor. 12. Under such circumstances, dismissal of the application seeking objecting the execution petition is just and proper which requires no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, following: ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25