1 Reserved on : 11.06.2025 Pronounced on : 08.07.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.7144 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION No.7124 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7126 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7141 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7142 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7143 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7145 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7147 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7148 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) WRIT PETITION No.7180 OF 2025 (GM - CPC) IN WRIT PETITION No.7144 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE 2 BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS 3 ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI L.S.RADHAKRISHNA S/O L.V.SEETHARAMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.327, ‘V’ CROSS ‘V’ BLOCK, III PHASE, III STAGE BANASHANKARI BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 4 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS 5 MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13 PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 563/2015 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7124 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 6 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE 7 BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SMT. H.R.VIMALA D/O H.K.RAMANATH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.123, 5TH MAIN ROAD I.T.I. LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU – 560 078. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) 8 D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13 PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) 9 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 561/2015 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7126 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH 10 AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 11 SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI S.S.SINDAGI S/O LATE S.D.SINDAGI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT NO.338, 7TH CROSS 3RD MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, H.M.T.LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 013. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD 12 CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13 PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3426/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7141 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK 13 BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 14 R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI S.RAVIKRISHNA S/O H.R.SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT STERLING TERRACE GARDEN APARTMENT, B.S.K.III STAGE RING ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE 15 UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA 16 RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 560/2015 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-160 AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7142 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA 17 W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 18 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SMT. R.MANJULA W/O RAJSEKHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.69, 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA 19 R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3422/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE 20 (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7143 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 21 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI K.S.SRINIVASAN 22 S/O V.SHESHAGIRI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.12, S.R.S. OF N.D.R.I 'B' TYPE QUARTERS, ADUGODI BENGALURU – 560 030. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 23 W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3425/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-160 AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7145 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE 24 BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS 25 ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI K.M.MUDDE GOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT MAYUR NIVAS 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU – 560 018. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 26 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS 27 MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3424/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7147 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR 28 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 29 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI JAYARAMU S/O GAVI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT CHANNASANDRA LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, S.B.PURA POST BENGALURU - 560 061. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY 30 KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN 31 EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3421/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7148 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD 32 BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) 33 AND: 1 . SRI G.T.NARASIMHACHAR S/O LATE G.THIRUNARAYANA IYENGAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO. 343, 5TH MAIN ISRO LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 34 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SIDDHARTHA D. K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 6 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3423/2013 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). IN WRIT PETITION No.7180 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI A.NAVEEN @ YASH S/O ARUN KUMAR J., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.755, 5TH CROSS 3RD PHASE, 3RD BLOCK 35 BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 2 . SRI K.C.RAGHUNATH @ RANGYANA RAGHU S/O K.C.CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.26/20, SRI RANGA DHAMA 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 040. 3 . SMT. R.PUSHPALATHA W/O G.H.MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.35/1, 'CHETHANA' 1 'B' MAIN ROAD VIVEKANANDANAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085. 4 . SMT. K.C.SOWBHAGYA W/O G.H.THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.3953, 17TH ‘D’ CROSS 3RD MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. 5 . SRI G.N.RAJASHEKARA NAIDU S/O G.V.NARASIMHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.861, 21ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 6 . SRI G.BHOGENDRA S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 36 R/AT NO.110, 8TH CROSS ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 7 . SRI N.JAYANNA S/O LATE NAGANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.302, MATHRU KRUPA 8TH CROSS, ANNAPURNESHWARI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. 8 . SRI HARISH KUMAR J., S/O R.JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.218, NAMMANE 6TH CROSS, 2ND ‘B’ MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 072. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, AND SMT. DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1 . SRI ANJANEYA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.86, II MAIN ROAD MUNIRAMANNA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032. 2 . SRI ASHWATH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE 37 UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 098. 3 . SRI NARASIMHARAJU S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.36, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560 098. 4 . SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O RAJANNA (CONTRACTOR) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS, CHANASANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 098. 5 . SMT. BYAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE MUNIDAS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT 7TH CROSS CHHANSANDRA COLONY KENGERI, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD CHANSANDRA, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. 6 . SMT. RATHANAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O RAMESH (DRIVER) D/O LATE VENKATAPPA R/AT MAHANTHALINGAPURA ANEKAL TALUK, NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH CARE CENTER, BENGALURU – 560 098. 7 . SMT. MANJULA W/O SOMSHEAKER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA 38 RESIDING AT NO.645, 4TH CROSS MALLASANDRA, MUNESHWARA BLOCK WARD NO.13, PEENYA DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057. ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 27.02.2025 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IN IA NO. 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 562/2015 BY THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-16) AT BANGALORE (ANNX-A). THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners and respondents in all these cases are common. They are before the Court calling in question an order dated 27-02-2025 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, in the Execution Petitions. 39 2. Heard Sri Bipin Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Abhinav Ramanand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - In terms of averments in the petitions, the history of the case dates back to 21-07-2007 when a common judgment in O.S.No.7761 of 2004 and connected cases was passed in respect of various properties bearing assessment No.2/3D situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk wherein the judgment debtors/respondents 2 to 7 were permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by the decree holders. On 20-05-2013 the petitioners purchase 1 acre of land in Sy.No.2/3B in Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. The 1st respondent and other decree holders in O.S.No.7761 of 2004 claiming that the schedule property belonged them, which is claimed by the petitioners, sought to execute the judgment and decree passed on 21-07-2007. 40 3.1. The petitioners are said to have filed O.S.No.8678 of 2014 through the General Power Attorney Holder against the respondents and other persons and the trial Court is said to have issued an order of status quo to be maintained by both the parties in terms of its order dated 21-11-2015. The said order of status quo was confirmed by order dated 31-01-2017 by the concerned Court. It appears that the GPA holder of the petitioners got advanced the suit and withdrew the same on 16-12-2022. On 04-03-2023, the present petitioners preferred an application in I.A.No.II under Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC to implead themselves in Execution No.560 of 2015 which comes to be rejected. 3.2. The concerned Court, further in Execution No.560 of 2015 grants police protection to execute the decree of permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.7761 of 2004. A little later, the concerned Court rejects the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC which comes to be challenged before this Court in R.F.A.No.1270 of 2023. The same comes to be disposed of as the petitioners/objectors withdrew the application reserving liberty to take steps in accordance with law. After 41 withdrawal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC they filed application in I.A.No.III under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking to implead themselves in the execution petitions. This comes to be rejected by the impugned order. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petitions. 3.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would seek to contend that execution petitions cannot be instituted against a third party without verifying the title and identity of the property. The Court must decide the ownership before dispossessing any person who is in possession of the property. To contend that the petitioners are in possession of the property, the application seeking impleadment in the execution proceedings is imperative to be allowed. The rejection of it is blatantly contrary to law. It is settled principle of law that even in a suit for permanent injunction the persons who are in possession or interested in the property, should be permitted to be impleaded, as a decree of permanent injunction is a judgment in personam. He would further contend that by taking police protection the decree is being executed or enforced against third parties like the petitioners who 42 are in possession of the property. In all, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are entitled to enter into these proceedings and agitate their rights. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents/decree holders would vehemently contend that the petitioners on every step are abusing the process of law. It is not today, the history of the case dates back to 1958. Several proceedings are undertaken by the decree holders up to the date on which O.S.No.7761 of 2004 comes to be decreed along with suit in O.S.No.3620 of 2006. The application filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC as objectors to enter into execution proceedings comes to be rejected, the rejection of which was challenged before this Court in regular first appeal which comes to be withdrawn to take steps in accordance with law. Steps that are taken is filing of the subject application. Police protection had to be sought by the decree holders in the light of influential characters of the petitioners and their henchmen in disturbing peaceful possession of the decree holders. At every stage, the petitioners have lost their claim and are now wanting to enter into execution 43 proceedings which they are not concerned about. He would seek dismissal of the petitions with exemplary costs. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 6. With regard to the suit schedule property the history is required to be noticed. It appears that a partition deed was entered into between the children of one late Narasimhaiah which included land bearing Sy.No.2/3 of Channasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk totally measuring 7 acres 02 guntas. The division of the property as per the partition deed is as follows: Sy.No. Extent A - G Allottee 2/3C 1 - 30 Muniraju 2/3A 1 - 32 Kariyappa 2/3D 1 - 30 Venkatappa 2/3B 1 - 30 Duggaiah Pursuant to the said partition as reflected hereinabove, sub- numbers were allotted to Sy.No.2/3 which would be Sy.No.2/3A, 44 3B, 3C and 3D. In respect of Sy.No.2/3B one Sri Duggaiah and his sons executed an agreement to sell on 03-06-1992 for an extent measuring 1 acre 30 guntas after receipt of entire sale consideration and executed a general power of attorney in respect of the said agreement of sale and vested the entire property to the hands of the attorney holder empowering him to sell sites or any portion of Sy.No.2/3B. Likewise, Venkatappa and his sons executed an agreement of sale on 03-06-1992 in respect of Sy.No.2/3D again measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and also executed a power of attorney vesting the entire property to the hands of the said attorney holder. On 9-10-1992 a sale deed is executed in favour of one S.Ravikrishna, one of the decree holders in the subject petitions in respect of sites in site numbers 24 and 25 of Sy.No.2/3D. The said transaction would be referred to as the Schedule property. The decree holder fulfilled all statutory charges to be paid to the Corporation and khatha was issued in his favour. 7. A suit comes to be instituted in O.S.No.7761 of 2004 by one of the site owners against the land owners i.e., Vemnkatappa and his sons who had sold Sy.No.2/3D. The decree that is sought 45 was for permanent injunction restraining any one claiming or interfering with the peaceful possession of the site. Several other site owners including the decree holders file suits for similar reliefs against land owners. On 28-12-2004 Venkatappa and his children, 12 years after having sold the land in Sy.No.2/3D where in a lay- out was already formed and sold to several site owners, allegedly manipulating/creating documents sold the property to one M.V. Keerthi Hassan. The sale was of the schedule property. The suit in O.S.No.7761 of 2004 along with connected suit were decreed and the land owners,Venkatappa and his children as also their henchmen or any person claiming through them, were restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule sites. After the said decree M.V Keerthi Hassan who was fully aware that the land purchased by him was a non-existent property as the suits were decree in favour of site owners against the land owners, sells the very property in favour of one V. Nagaraj. 8. When things stood thus, V.Nagaraj who had purchased the alleged non-existent land from the hands of M.V. Keerthi Hassan 46 who had suffered a decree sells it to the present petitioners. It is then, the present petitioners come into the picture as purchasers of the property i.e., property in Sy.No.2/3D. Subsequent to the purchase, with an intention to deprive the decree holder and several others who had purchased sites in the landed property, the petitioners institute a suit in O.S.No.8678 of 2014 against their vendors for declaration that they are the absolute owners of landed property and for permanent injunction. The suit filed in O.S.No.8678 of 2014 comes to be withdrawn. Simultaneously, the decree holders institute execution proceedings. In the execution proceedings, the present petitioners seek to implead themselves on an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. The said application comes to be rejected by the concerned Court, the rejection of which is challenged before this Court by filing a regular first appeal in R.F.A.No.1270 of 2023, as an order under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is a decree by itself. A coordinate Bench of this Court, disposed of the said appeal as withdrawn, by the following orders: “2. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal as well as the interlocutory application I.A.No.2 filed by them before the Trial Court by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such 47 remedies as available in law. The said memo is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. 3. On perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the same arises out of an application I.A.No.2 filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC in the instant E.P.No.560/2015 which was filed by the respondent/decree holder to execute and implement a decree for permanent injunction. It is needless state that in execution proceedings arising out of a decree for permanent injunction, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC would not be maintainable having regard to the specific language employed in the provisions contained in Order 21 Rules 97 to 104 of CPC. 4. Under these circumstances, the present appeal as well as the application I.A.No.2 filed by the appellants before the Trial Court which culminated in the impugned order are permitted to be withdrawn by the appellants by reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law. If the appellants take recourse to such other remedies as available in law and institute appropriate proceedings before any Court/forum, respondent would be entitled to contest the same in accordance with law. 5. It is further directed in the event the appellants institute such proceedings as referred to supra, the appropriate Court/forum shall provide an opportunity to both parties and dispose off the said proceedings in accordance with law without being influenced by the findings and observations recorded in the impugned order passed by the trial court which is impugned in the present appeal. Subject to the aforesaid liberty and directions, the appeal stands disposed off as withdrawn without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.” The order passed was on a memo filed by the petitioners. It reads as follows: 48 “The appellants have filed a application under Order XXI Rule 97 r/w section 151 of CPC in Execution Petition No.560/2015 filed by the respondents seeking execution of the judgment and decree passed in suit O.S.No.3620/2005 for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the application on merits. The said order was challenged in the W.P.No.10319/2023 and at the request of the appellant hererin, this Hon’ble Court was permitted the convert the same as the aforesaid regular first appeal. The appellant has now realized that the application itself was not maintainable before the Trial Court in an injunction suit. In view of the same, the appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the appellant to withdraw the I.A.No.2 filed under Order XXI Rule 97 referred to above before the Trial Court and consequently set-aside the order passed thereon on merits with liberty to the appellant to pursue the Misc No.1259/2023 to recall the order O.S.No. 8678/2014 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore and all other available remedy in the interest of justice”. Liberty was reserved to take recourse to proceedings available in law. 9. In the interregnum, owing to the fact that the present petitioners were disturbing peaceful possession of the property, the decree holders sought police protection against the judgment debtors or any person claiming under them. The police protection was granted. The grant of police protection is also challenged by the present petitioners in Writ Petition No.13521 of 2023 which comes to be withdrawn on 05-12-2023. Thereafter, exercising the liberty granted while withdrawing R.F.A.No.1270 of 2023, the 49 petitioners preferred the application to implead themselves in the execution proceedings by filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The said applications are now rejected by the concerned Court which forms the challenge in the subject petitions. 10. The concerned Court, noticing the facts in their entirety, has held that the applicants cannot be permitted to be impleaded as objectors by filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the light of the fact of the decree and the decree passed in O.S.No.7761 of 2004 had become final. The Court also notices repeated filing of applications and withdrawing some by the petitioners. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court to reject the application read as follows: “…. …. … 7. Point No.1:- On careful consideration of materials available on record, this execution petition is filed to execute Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 7761/2004. The impleading applicants have filed I.A. No.3 under Order 1 Rule 10(a) of CPC to implead them as objectors. 8. It is the case of the impleading applicants that they are absolute owners of agricultural land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.2/3B of Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru and that they are in possession of the application schedule property. The decree holder taking advantage of the similarity in assessment 50 numbers of the suit property i.e., assessment No.2/3D and that of application schedule property i.e. assessment No.2/3B is attempting to execute the common Judgment of this Court dated 21.07.2007 passed in O.S.No. 7761/2004. The decree holder is attempting to execute a decree in respect of the property which cannot be identified and located. The applicants and the application schedule property are neither connected to the suits in O.S.No. 7761/2004 and other connected matters. Despite the same, the decree is sought to be executed against the applicants. As per order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1270/2023, the applicants/objectors were permitted to withdraw the I.A filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC by granting liberty to the applicants/objectors to take necessary steps as required under law. The applicants had filed comprehensive suit for declaration against the Dhr by filing suit bearing O.S.No.8678/2014 and there was an order of status quo passed in the said suit after hearing of parties vide order dated 21.11.2015. The said order was operative till the said suit was withdrawn. The applicants have now filed an application for recall of said order in Misc. No. 1260/2023 and notice is issued there under which is pending for adjudication before the Court. 9. On careful consideration of materials available on records, as per Partition dated 27.04.1959, Partition Deed was effected between children of late Narasimhaiah in respect of Sy. No.2/3 of Channasandra Village, Bengaluru South. Sy.No.2/3C was allotted to Mr. Muniraju. Sy.No.2/3A was allotted to Mr. Kariyappa. Sy.No.2/3D was allotted to Mr. Venkatappa. Sy.No.2/3B was allotted to Mr. Duggalah. A registered GPA dated 15.07.1992 was executed by Sri. Venkatappa and his sons with respect to entire extent of Sy. No.2/3D measuring one acre 30 guntas with the attorney holder being empowered to sell sites/any portion of Sy.No.2/3D and receive the sale consideration. On 09.10.1992, sale deed is executed in favour of Mr. Ravikrishna Si.e. the decree holder. On 15.10.2004, O.S.No. 7761/2004 is filed before this Court by one of the site owners against the land owners Sri. Venkatappa and his children seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining them or any person claiming through them from interfering with her peaceful possession. On 21.07.2007, O.S.No. 51 7761/2004 along with connected suits are decreed and land owners Sri. Venkatappa, his children and any person claiming through or under them were restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property sites. E.P.No. 1233/2008 was filed on 12.07.2012 wherein JDRs and persons claiming through them attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the decree holder over schedule property even after Judgment and Decree. On 12.07.2012, the JDRs were detained in civil prison for 10 days for violating the order /Judgment/ Decree passed in the suit. Appeal was preferred before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru bearing W.P.No.29403/2012 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru has disposed of the petition on the affidavit filed by JDRs. The subsequent purchasers who purchased the landed property from Sri.V.Nagaraju i.e. 0 impleading applicants having purchased sites in the landed property have filed suit bearing O.S.No.8678/2014 before 39th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru i.e. CCH- 40 against their vendors, predecessors and site owners seeking the relief of declaration as the absolute owners of landed property and for permanent injunction. The RFA filed by the JDRs bearing RFA No.2070/2012 challenging the order of permanent injunction granted in O.S.No. 7761/2004 and connected matters were dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 28.11.2014. The present execution petition is filed by the DHR on 07.03.2015 on account of violation of the undertaking given by the JDRs in W.P.No.29406/2012. On 21.11.2015, an order of status-quo was passed in O.S.No.8678/2014. Application for grant of injunction filed by the impleading applicants/ plaintiffs in O.S.No.8678/2014 was dismissed on 31.01.2017 confirming the order of status-quo passed on 21.11.2015. 1.Α.No.7 filed in O.S.No.8678/2014 came to be allowed and the SHO, Rajarajeshwarinagara police station was given direction. On 16.12.2022, memo was filed in O.S.No.8678/2014 by advancing the case to withdraw the suit unconditionally. The said suit for declaration came to be withdrawn. DHR and other site owners have lodged complaint on 18.12.2022 and FIR was registered. Under Order 21 rule 97 of CPC the in E.P. 560/2015 present impleading applicants have filed I.A. No.2 in E.P.560/2015 on 04.02.2023 to come on record as objectors. I.A.No.2 filed by the impleading applicants was 52 dismissed by this Court on 04.03.2023 in EP. 560/2015 RFA No. 1270/2023 is filed by the impleading applicants before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru challenging the order dated 04.03.2023 e passed in E.P.560/2015 writ Petition No. 13521/2023 is filed by the impleading applicants challenging the order of police protection dated 22.05.2023 in passed by this Court in E.P.560/2015 Miscellaneous petition bearing No. 1260/2023 is filed by the impleading applicants on. 04.11.2023 to restore the suit in O.S.No.8678/2014. On 17.11.2023, RFA No. 1270/2023 filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru is dismissed as withdrawn. The objector application filed by the impleading applicants in I.A.No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn on the submission of the impleading applicants themselves. On 05.12.2023, W.P.No. 13521/2023 filed by the impleading applicants challenging the order of police protection dated 22.05.2023 is dismissed as withdrawn. 10. On careful scrutiny of materials available on record, the application is filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC. The decree holder has filed this petition to execute decree of injunction. It is a settled principle of law that in a petition filed for execution of order of injunction, application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable. The Judgment and Decree passed by this Court in O.S.No. 7761/2004 has attained finality. The applicants cannot be permitted to implead them as objectors by filing I.A. under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. The JDRs are at liberty to take recourse as required under law. The applicants have not made out sufficient grounds to consider the application as they have no claim, right or interest with respect to petition schedule property. The impleadment of impleading applicants in the present petition is neither proper nor necessary for effective adjudication of petition. The JDRs are at liberty to take recourse to law by taking necessary action. The I.A. filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable in this petition. Hence, this Court inclines to answer Point No.1 in Negative. 11. Point No.2:- In view of foregoing discussions, this Court proceed to pass following:- 53 ORDER (1) I.A.No.3 filed by the impleading applicants under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Sec. 151 of CPC dated 20.12.2023 is dismissed. 2) Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, no order as to costs. (3) The learned respective counsels are directed to assist Court for speedy and expeditious disposal of petition as the matter is of the year 2015 coming under plan of action. Sd/- 27.02.2025 XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.” (Emphasis added) The concerned Court holds that the judgment debtors are at liberty to take recourse to law. The applicants have not made out any ground to permit them to be impleaded as impleading applicants, as they are neither proper nor necessary parties for effective adjudication of the execution petitions. 11. It becomes necessary to notice certain judgments of the co-ordinate benches of this Court regarding impleadment of parties through an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in execution proceedings. A co-ordinate bench of this court in 54 V.K. CHOODANATHA SETTY v. P. GOPALACHETTY1, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 5. At the outset it should be mentioned that Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. does not apply to execution proceedings. If the revision petitioners-applicants have purchased the property involved in the sale proceedings, other remedies are open to them. But they cannot come on record as judgment-debtors when they are not parties to the original suit.” (Emphasis Supplied) Another co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of CHANDRASHEKARAGOUDA v. SLAO2, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 8. In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be invoked in the absence of any specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 has been incorporated specifically for seeking the relief of impleadment. Therefore, the powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked in the case of Order I Rule 10, which provides for impleadment of the parties. The bench of this Court in the case of Choodanath Setty (supra), has held that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 do not apply to the execution proceeding. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. Besides that it is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.3 has already filed a civil suit in which he has obtained order of stay with regard to 1 1995 SCC OnLine Kar 141 2 W.P. 107319 of 2019 (GM-CPC), Dt. 28.11.2019 55 execution proceeding. Hence, the impugned order is hereby quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed.” (Emphasis Supplied) Yet another co-ordinate bench of this Court in FAHAD AHMED v. SALMAN SHABANA3, holds as follows: “…. …. …. 3. The petitioner filed I.A.No.II under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in Execution Petition No.539/2022, pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kalaburagi to implead himself as an objector to appose the claim of the decree holder. The petitioner claimed that he is also having interest in the suit property and therefore, decree cannot be executed against the judgment debtor who is none other than the step- mother of the petitioner. The Trial Court rightly rejected the said application on contest holding that in execution petition, there is no scope for application of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner is before this Court. …. …. …. 8. If any independent right is sought to be adjudicated, not claiming under the judgment debtor by any person, he must resort to an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 100 of CPC and the same needs to be considered as per the Rule 101 of Order 21 of CPC. 9. Except the said provision, no other application by a third party is maintainable before the executing Court. Therefore, dismissal of the application by order vide Annexure – J by the Executing Court in E.P.539/2022 dated 31.01.2024 is perfectly justified. 3 W.P. 200652 of 2024 (GM-CPC), Dt. 29.02.2024 56 10. Further, expressing any other opinion on the merits of the matter would definitely hamper the right of the parties. Therefore, this Court resists from expressing any further opinion of the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition needs to be dismissed.” (Emphasis Supplied) On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate benches of this court, what would unmistakably emerge is that impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC cannot be allowed in execution proceedings; judgment debtors and decree holders are the only parties to execution proceedings; parties who are not parties to the original suit cannot come on record as parties in execution proceedings and independent third parties objecting to execution proceedings can only apply under Order XXI Rule 97 and Rule 100 of the CPC and not under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. 12. Submissions are made with regard to several issues by the learned counsel for the petitioners. None of those would merit any consideration in the light of the fact that these petitioners have repeatedly sought to exercise their right and withdrew or suffered determination against them which have all become final. I do not find any perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court 57 rejecting the application filed by these petitioners under Order I Rule 10 CPC, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RADHEY SHYAM v. CHHABI NATH reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, wherein the Apex court holds that the High Court should interfere only if it finds the order to be perverse or causing failure of justice. On the other hand, if the applicants/petitioners are permitted to come on record it would probably ensue failure of justice, as these decree holders are fighting for their rights for the last 30 years. 13. For the aforesaid discussions, finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS