- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 30735 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. MADANAYAKA S/O CHOWDANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT HOSAMANAHALLI, BOLANAHALLI POST HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VIRUPAKSHA L B S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT LALANDEVANAHALLI B R PURA POST K R NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. 2. SRI JAGADEESH S/O JATTIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT KANTHEGOWDANA KOPPALU VILLAGE KRISHNAPURA POST, HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 3. SMT. MAHADEVI V W/O MADANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT HOSARAMANAHALLI, BOLANAHALLI POST HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE E PASSED IN E.NO 12/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR, DATED 29/7/25 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to respondent for the following reasons: The petition is filed by the Petitioner-JDR challenging Annexure-E which is the impugned order passed in Execution Petition No.12/2022 dated 29.07.2025. The question that is raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner-JDR in the execution petition is that the draft sale deed is incorrect and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 therefore he had taken up the contention that the draft sale deed to be rectified as it is not in consonance with the suit schedule property so also the judgment & decree rendered by the Trial Court. 3. It is also the contention that the suit schedule property is two floor building as stated in the order of the Executing Court ie., 1st and 2nd floor but it is only ground and 1st floor and that RFA is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner-JDR that the Executing Court has mentioned two floor house ie., 1st and 2nd floor which is not the case of the plaintiff in the suit schedule so also neither it is in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Therefore the order is bad in law as the same is not the case either of the plaintiff and neither the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Be that as it may. The respondent who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court has succeeded in the suit filed for specific performance. The schedule mentioned in the plaint is as under: "All that piece and parcel of RCC house property bearing No.251/237. Unique code No. 152200200501000383, measuring East to West 12.30 meter and North to South 10.76 meter at - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 totally 132.34 sq.meter situated Hosaramanahally Village, under the jurisdiction of Bolanahally Grama Panchayath, Bilikere Hobli. Hunsur Taluk. Mysuru District, bounded on: East by: Road, West by: Sy.No.2. North by: Road, South by: Galli and house belongs to Thimmamma". The judgment & decree rendered by Trial Court in O.S.No.57/2020 is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in which the schedule of the property is mentioned as as under along with boundaries and measurement: "All that piece and parcel of RCC house property bearing No.251/237, Unique code No. 152200200501000383. measuring East to West 12.30 meter and North to South 10.76 meter, totally 132.34 Sq. meter situated at Hosaramanahally Village, under the jurisdiction of Bolanahally Grama Panchayath, Bilikere Hobli. Hunsur Taluk, Mysuru Dist., bounded on. East by: Road West by: Sy. No.2 North by: Road South by: Galli and house belongs to Thimmamma" Therefore it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court has committed an error and has gone beyond the decree which is impermissible. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 plaintiff DHR has filed execution petition to enforce the judgment and Decree of the trial Court. Petitioner has no objections for the same. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to respondent-DHR as this court is not passing any adverse orders against the respondent-DHR. The short point for consideration in this case is whether the Executing Court can go beyond the decree. The suit schedule property is mentioned as narrated earlier by giving boundaries and measurements. The judgment and decree is also delivered by the Court negating the contentions of the defendant-JDR and the schedule is mentioned in the decree as well so also in the Petition filed by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the Executing Court is duty bound to go only with regard to the schedule of the judgment and decree rendered by the Trial Court and not beyond, which is the fundamental rule of law. 5. Under such circumstances, I pass the following order: (i) This petition is disposed off. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41521 WP No. 30735 of 2025 (ii) I am not inclined to interfere with the execution petition; (iii) This petition calls for interference for two aspects that is mentioned by the Executing Court with regard to two floors in the order; (iv) It is made clear that the Executing Court shall proceed further in the execution petition as per the judgment and decree of the Trial Court so also the schedule of the execution petition. (v) If the judgment debtor wants to execute the sale deed to the satisfaction of the decree holder as per the Judgment and Decree, he is at liberty to do so. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74 CT: BHK