- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 101354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101354 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. GIRIMALLAYYA S/O ALLAYYA MATHAPATI AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT DIST. BAGALKOT. (SHRI, CHIKKAYYA S/O GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI) SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 2. SMT. LALITA W/O CHIKKAYYA HIREMATH @ MATHAPATI AGE. 50 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. SMT. MALLAMMA W/O IRAYYA MARADIMATH AGE. 27 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 4. SMT. RAJSHREE W/O ADIVESH TELAGINMATH AGE. 27 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. SASALATTI Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 101354 of 2025 TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. SAVITA W/O JAGADISH HIREMATH AGE. 27 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK R/O. SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 6. SHRI. ALLAYYA S/O GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI AGE. 50 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. 7. SHRI. NAGAYYA S/O GIRIMALLAYYA MATHAPATI. AGE. 47 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. SASALATTI TQ. RABHAKAVI-BANAHATT. DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M C HUKKERI,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. KALAVATI W/O SHIVALINGAYYA MATHAD AGE. 45 YEARS OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O SHIVANUR TQ. ATHANI NOW AT DAVANAGERI …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS D/W V/O DATED 21.02.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO SET-ASIDE THE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 101354 of 2025 IMPUGNED ORDER ON IA.. NO. IV DATED. 09/12/2024 IN E.P. NO. 6/2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANAHATTI, AT. BANAHATTI, VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ALLOW THE I.A. NO. IV IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondent is dispensed with, in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Set-aside the impigned order on I.A.No.IV dated 09.12.2024 in E.P.No.6/2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Banahatti, At: Banahatti, vide Annexure-N and allow the I.A.No.IV in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Pass such order or orders which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The respondent, having filed execution petition No.6 of 2021 had led evidence therein. The petitioners who are judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 had filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for discarding the evidence of the decree holders in IA No.4. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 101354 of 2025 said application came to be rejected vide order dated 9.12.2024. It is challenging the same, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Sri.M.C.Hukkeri., learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the decree holder has led evidence on aspects which cannot be decided by the Execution Court. Furthermore, that the evidence has been led as regards a Will as regards which the Execution Court cannot give a finding. Lastly, his submission is that the evidence was led by the decree holder when the judgment debtors were not present. 5. Heard Sri.M.C.Hukkeri., learned counsel for the petitioner and perused papers. 6. The right of the decree holders to lead evidence in the execution petition does exist and it cannot be said that the decree holder could not have led evidence. Once evidence is led, it is for the judgment debtor to cross-examine the said witness on the documents which have been produced. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3634 WP No. 101354 of 2025 7. The judgment debtor cannot seek for discarding of the evidence just because the judgment debtor does not like the evidence or is of the opinion that the evidence led is irrelevant. 8. Upon cross examination by the judgment debtor, it is for the Court to appreciate the veracity or otherwise as also materiality or otherwise of the said evidence and pass necessary orders. The same cannot be considered in an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by exercising the inherent powers vested in the Execution Court. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, reserving liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness of the decree holder. The petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43