- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 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. 479 OF 2016 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI. D. VENKATAIAH WRONGLY MENTIONED AS VENKATAPPA S/O LATE D.P. MALAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO 421, 2ND CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047 AND ALSO R/A SONNENAHALLI EXTENSION WARD NO 71, BANGALORE. PRESENTLY R/A NO 97 8TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS, NEW ANDHRA COLONY VIVEKANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N AND SRI. MANJUNATHA K.V., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT HOORNAZ BANU Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 W/O MOHAMED YOOSUF AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO 5430, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, VIVEKNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047. 2. SMT VIJAYA KUMARI W/O DHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 3. RUPASHREE D/O DHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE BOTH ARE R/A NO 1666 B TYPE III STAGE, B D A LAYOUT AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 047. ALSO R/A NO 148, 2ND MAIN, SONNENAHALLI FURTHER EXTENSION, VIVEKANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M MOHAN KUMAR AND E. VENKATARAMI REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 21.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 VIJAYA KUMARI AND R3-RUPASHREE ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED IN EX.P.NO.2612/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 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. Rajeshwara P.N, learned counsel for petitioner and none appears for the respondents. 2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder in Execution Case No.2612/2012, challenging the dismissal of the execution petition by order dated 01.09.2016. 3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1 A suit was filed by the respondent in O.S.No.7721/2009 for the relief of permanent injunction inter- alia an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to be filed. 3.2 Learned Trial Judge who heard the application on merits, allowed the application in part. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 3.3 Operative portion of the said order reads as under: ORDER '' IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code is hereby partly allowed. I hereby direct both the parties to maintain status-quo pertaining to suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. '' 4. Later on the plaintiff being the master of the suit, withdrew the suit and sold the property in favour of third party. 5. Being aggrieved by the violation of the interim order and withdrawal of the suit, defendant in the said suit filed an execution petition which was numbered as Execution Case No. 2612/12 for the relief of violation of the status quo order and to punish the plaintiff. 6. In the meantime, defendant had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.782/2012. 7. On contest said Miscellaneous case came to be dismissed. Further, defendant filed Miscellaneous First Appeal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 in M.F.A.No.7834/2016 against the said order which also came to be dismissal by this Court. 8. However defendant pursued with the execution case and the same was objected by the plaintiff. 9. Learned Trial Judge heard on the maintainability of the execution petition and by impugned order dated 01.09.2016 dismissed the execution petition as maintainable. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed on following and amongst other grounds. 11. Sri. Rajeshwara P.N, learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge missed the notice of the provision under the Code of Civil Procedure called out in Section 36 of the CPC, whereunder even interim order can be executed by filing an execution petition. 12. In support of his arguments, he has placed on record following judgments: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 1. Sheela Jerald and others Vs. Pushpadasan reported in 2018 (4) KHC 402 2. Bhimashenrao Vs. Ambarao reported in ILR 1998 KAR 4236 13. In the case of Sheela Jerald (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the question of application of Section 36, in paragraph Nos.3 to 6 has held as under: ''2. The High Court has refused to entertain an execution petition filed by the Appellants for enforcing the order of interim injunction granted to them restraining the purchaser from disturbing the peaceful possession of the premises and further directing him to vacate the premises in question. 3. The sole ground on which the High Court has refused to permit execution of the order is that the order sought to be enforced by execution is an interim order. This finding of the High Court is obviously untenable in view of Section 36, Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under: 36. Application to orders.-- The provisions of this Code relating to the execution of decrees (including provisions relating to payment under a decree) shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of orders (including payment under an order.) 4. In M.V.S. Manikyala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors. MANU/SC/0363/1965: 1966 KHC 453 AIR 1966 SC 470: 1966 (1) SCR 628: 1966 (1) MLJ (SC) 29 thi Court rejected the contention that Order XXI Rule 35(2) did not apply to the case in hand because the order in question was only an order for delivery of joint possession and not a decree. The Court observed that "this contention cannot be accepted because Under Section 36 of the Code the provisions relating to the execution of decrees are applicable to execution of orders." We find that there is no - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 material difference between the order that fell for consideration in Manikayala Rao's case (supra) and an order such as an order granting an interim injunction. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that an Interim order cannot be executed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure because Order 39 Rule 2(a) provides for consequence of disobedience of an injunction. It is not possible to hold that a provision which provides for a consequence of disobedience of an injunction has no relevance to whether an order passed under the Code of Civil Procedure validly by the competent Court can be executed or not. 6. Indeed an order passed validly by a competent Court must be capable of execution if it has to have any meaning for the parties in litigation. Incidentally, we are informed that the order sought to be executed by the Appellants was challenged and had been upheld by the High Court itself.'' 14. Further, in the case of Bhimashenrao (Supra), learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the scope of Section 36, in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 has held as under: '' 2. Section 36 clearly indicates that even an interim order can be executed in the same way as a decree. On the basis of that the Execution Petition was held as maintainable. Aggrieved by that the petitioner preferred the C.R.P. 3. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that a well considered order has been passed by the Executing Court that when a person disobeys the interim order during the pendency of the suit, it is always open to either move the Court for contempt or to execute the interim order passed by the Court. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.'' - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 15. Based on the same, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the impugned order and direct the Executing Court to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law. 16. On careful perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the suit is one for bare injunction. It is to be noted that the interim order did not grant temporary injunction for the benefit of the plaintiff. Pertinently, defendant did not get an order by filing an application nor suppressed the order of status-quo. Therefore the interim order of status quo passed in favour of the plaintiff cannot be taken benefit of by the defendant to file the execution petition. 17. No doubt under Section 36 of CPC, an interim order can be executed. But the party who obtained the interim order is not the defendant, it is the plaintiff. No doubt defendant was also required to maintain status quo, so also the plaintiff. 18. If there is a violation of the interim order on behalf of the plaintiff in selling the property to third party and withdrawing the suit, the remedy for the defendant was elsewhere and such a remedy was pursued by the defendant by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40584 CRP No. 479 of 2016 filing a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC which ended before this Court in the Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7834/2016. 19. Under such circumstances, the order of the rejection of the Execution Petition as not maintainable is just and proper. 20. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheela Jerald (Supra) and Bhimashenrao Vs. Ambarao (Supra), but on factual aspects, in view of the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find that the principles of law enunciated in those decisions would advance the case of the petitioner to any extent. 21. Hence, following the order: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4