- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 25103 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI PRAVEEN M.B. S/O M.N. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MANCHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, POST: K. PALASANDRA, GULUR HOBLI, TQ. AND DISTRICT: TUMAKURU PINCODE: 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESH BABU S/O LATE LAKSHMAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND S.P. OFFICER, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SIDDALINGAIAHANAPALYA, TUMAKURU TOWN, DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 101. 2. M.N.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NANJUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 3. SHIVAGANGAMMA, MAJOR, W/O M.N.SHIVAKUMAR. 4. MANOJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O M.N. SHIVAKUMAR. 5. MADHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O M.N. SHIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT Nos.2 to 5 ARE R/O MANCHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, POST:K. PALASANDRA, GULUR HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: TUMAKURU PINCODE – 572 101. 6. GANGABASAVAIAH, S/O LATE DODDABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O KESARAMODU, URDIGERE HOBLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: TUMAKURU – 572 101. DIVAKAR S/O A.G. SHIVASHANKAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 7. SMT. ROOPASHREE W/O LATE DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 8. SHRUTHI D., D/O LATE DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 9. DEEPANKAR S/O LATE DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. 10. HAMPA S/O LATE DIVAKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS J.DR.7 TO 10 ARE R/O NO. 1064, GOWDARBEEDI, CHICKAPET, TUMAKURU CITY, DISTRICT: TUMAKURU – 572 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, IN EP NO.67/2022, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO ISSUE OF WARRANT TO THE COMMISSIONER, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU TO CONSIDER I.A. DATED 01/08/2025 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B AND I.A. DATED 01/08/2025 FILED U/O 21 R 97 R/W SEC.101 OF CPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE C, BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER IN E.P. NO. 67/2022. 67/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner, the objector in Execution Petition No.67 of 2022 is before this Court, calling in question an order passed by the concerned Court by declining to accept the objection of the petitioner and issuing warrant to the Commissioner for the purpose of execution of the decree. 2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar P Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. 3. A suit is instituted in O.S.75 of 2007 seeking partition and separate possession. The suit comes to be decreed. Pursuant to the decree, an execution petition is preferred in Execution Petition 67 of 2022 seeking to execute the decree. An application is preferred under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC by the petitioner, an objector, that if the decree would sought to be executed, he would be put to great prejudice, as in the guise of the decree, the petitioner, the objector would get evicted from the premises. The concerned Court, by its order - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 dated 01-08-2025 rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC. The petitioner, thus challenges the same before this Court, holding that the learned Judge even after receipt of the application, has proceeded with the execution petition, without considering the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the execution schedule properties. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has preferred another suit in O.S.No.360 of 2025 for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property which is pending consideration. Therefore, the execution petition which is filed seeking to execute decree in O.S.No.75 of 2007 must be stayed, or the petitioner must be permitted to enter the execution in Execution 67 of 2022. 5. The concerned Court, by the impugned order, rejects the application of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner has already filed another suit he has no right to enter into these proceedings as an objector. I do not find any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43603 WP No. 25103 of 2025 perversity in the order, rejecting the application of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. It is always to open to the petitioner to challenge the same in a manner known to law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3