- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 778 OF 2023 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI NAGABUSHAN H S/O LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.54/1, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, SHANKARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 096 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ANGADI S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.ANASUYA W/O S NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.303 1ST STAGE, 6TH PHASE, 5TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHRI MAHAGANAPATHINAGARA BENGALURU - 560 010 2. SMT.CHINNATHAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. SRI VENKATESH @ MARI FATHER NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SL.NO.2 & 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.6 12TH CROSS, BOVIPALYA, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANMOHAN.P.N., ADVOCATE FOR GPA HOLDER FOR R1; R2 & R3 - served) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2023 PASSED IN EX.CASE NO. 1665/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE EXECUTION PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Shri.S.V.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for GPA Holder of Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property involved in Execution Case No.1665 of 2017 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Executing Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 3. The order of Trial Court dated 07.02.2023 is culled out hereunder for ready reference: "The execution petition filed by the DHR / plaintiff is hereby allowed. The concerned jurisdictional police are hereby directed to give protection to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and to take action against the JDRs, if the Judgment Debtors trespass into the property of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the execution petition is disposed of". 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: i) A suit in O.S.No.4190 of 2013 came to be filed on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru by first respondent Smt.Anasuya against Smt.Chinnathayamma and Smt.Venkatesh alias Mari. Suit came to be decreed and an order of permanent injunction was granted in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject matter' of the revision petition). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY (Belonging to the Petitioner) Site No.296/C, khata No.173/15, Assessment No.173/15 (Old No.173), Ward No.67, (Old Ward No.14), situate Kethamaranahalli Village, presently known as Bhovipalya, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru and as per B.B.m.P., khata certificate WCR Road, 2nd Phase, 2nd Stage, East to West : 24 ft, North to South: 43 ft totally 1,032 sft along with compound wall, temporary structure and a residential building and bounded on: East by: Site No.296 West by: Site No.296-A North: Road, South: Site No.282/B SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY (Belonging to the Plaintiff in O.S.No.4190/2013 as stated in the Execution Petition No.1665/2017) All the piece and parcel of Site No.1 and 2 new No.296/A and 296/B measuring East to West : 70 ft, North to South: 36 ft., at Kethamaranahalli, Yeshwanthpura, Bengaluru Taluk and bounded on: East by: Site No.296 West by: Site No.297 North: Road South: Private property ii) There was a complaint by the decree holder about the violation of the injunction order and therefore, execution petition came to be filed in Execution Case No. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 1665 of 2017. The learned Trial Judge after notifying the judgment debtors, passed the order as referred to supra. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner has filed the above revision petition on the following grounds:  The impugned order is contrary to law and evidence on record.  The Court below is not properly construed and appreciated the pleadings.  The Court below on the basis of solitary evidence of PW-1 ought not to have decreed the suit more particularly when both the defendants having served remain absent throughout.  A perusal of EP at page No.3, the schedule is vague and misleading. The details of main road, cross road, BBMP ward No. forming part of survey number etc are not forthcoming. The dimensions also cannot be construed as that of 'A' schedule property. Merely on the strength of boundaries shown in E.P., by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that it belongs to the present petitioner.  In the affidavit sworn, it is stated that the JDR are residing. This is a total blatant lie. If really the Judgement were to be in possession, they would have been summoned by the police. To that extent the decree holder has filed a false affidavit. The Police have never summoned the Judgement Debtors. Moreso, when the present - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 petitioners are residing at any rate, on the strength of the shcheudle offended to the E.P., the decree holder cannot convert it into as that belonging to the A schedule property belonging to the present petitioner.  Proper presumption of law and fact are not drawn.  The reasons assigned and the conclusion drawn is erroneous resulting in miscarriage of justice.  The Court below has exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law. Further it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which is so vested. At the same time, there is improper exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity and acted not in accordance with law. These circumstances, ultimately paved way for failure of justice resulting in irrevocable injury to the petitioner. For somebody else lapses the compound wall and the temporary structure ought not to have been demolished employing excavator. 6. Shri.S.V.Angadi, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the suit property is absolutely belonging to the petitioner and clandestinely an order of injunction is obtained and in the guise of executing the said order, the property of the petitioner has been smashed and his car has been damaged, inmates of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 the car including the driver were thrown out and they were beaten up. Therefore, the order of the Execution Court needs to be revised. 7. Per contra Shri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel would contend that petitioner is not known to the decree holder and if any independent claim exists in revision petitioner, his remedy lies elsewhere and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not a party to the suit nor the execution petition. 10. If the revision petitioner is having any independent right over the subject matter of the revision petition, he may file necessary proceedings and obtain necessary orders before the appropriate Forum. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52391 CRP No. 778 of 2023 11. With that liberty reserved in the petitioner, order is passed: ORDER Revision petition is not maintainable and accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14