- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 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. 113 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N. JAYALAKSHMI D/O. LATE S.M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. LATE S.M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 3. SMT. B.N. RATHNAKUMARI W/O. K. MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 4. SMT. B.N. INDRANI W/O. UJJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 5. SRI. B.N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE S.M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.63/2, "G" STREET, JOGUPALYAM, HALASURU, BANGALORE - 08 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. YAMUNA RAI W/O. LATE NARAYANA RAI, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 R/AT "ROHINI NIVASA", NEAR BDO OFFICE, COURT ROAD, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239 (SINCE DECEASED AND HER LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT No.2 TO RESPONDENT No.11 HEREIN) 2. SMT SHAMBAVI W/O LATE RAMANANDA K. RAI AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 3. SMT ANITHA ADPANGYA D/O LATE RAMANANDA K. RAI, AGED MAJOR, 4. SMT NAMITH JAYANTH SHETTY D/O LATE RAMANANDA K. RAI, AGED MAJOR, 5. SRI AJITH S/O LATE RAMANANDA K. RAI, AGED MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NETRAVATHY LAYOUT, NEAR CAPITANIO, KANAKANADY, NAGORI, MANGALORE - 02 6. SMT BABY W/O LATE BALAKRISHNA K. RAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 7. SMT POORNIMA D/O LATE BALAKRISHNA K.RAI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT NO.306, "C"BLOCK, MOURISHKA BLOCK, OPPOSITE SHARADAHA VIDYALAYA, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE - 560 002 8. SRI SEETHARAMA K. RAI S/O LATE NARAYANA RAI, AGED 61 YEARS R/AT "ROSHINI NIVAS' SAVANOOR, PUTTURU TALUK - 574 201 9. SRI SUDHAKAR K RAI W/O LATE NARAYANA RAI, AGED 57 YEARS R/AT "ROHINI NIVASA" NEAR BDO OFFICE, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239 10. SMT SHAKUNTHALA V. CHOWTA D/O LATE NARAYANA RAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS W/O VENKATAPPA CHOWTA, R/AT UJJODI PUMPWELL, MANGALORE-02 11. SRI JAYAPRAKASH K. RAI S/O LATE NARAYANA RAI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT "ROHINI NIVASA", NEAR BDO OFFICE, SULLIA DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 239 12. SRI H.T.RAJU S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.36, KEMPEGOWDA EXTENSION, KATHRAGUPPA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085 13. SRI PATALAPPA S/O LATE MALLAIAH, MAJOR, R/AT SARAIPALYA VILLAGE, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 016 14. SRI M R SEETHA RAM S/O LATE M S RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT GOKULA HOUSE, GOKULA EXTENSION, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-54 15. SMT SHARADA J SHETTY W/O A.J.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT "PRASHANTHI NILAYA" G.G.ROAD, ALAKE, MANGALORE - 575 003 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH MS. BHAVANA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R14 SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R11 & R15 R2 - SHAMBAVI - SERVED R6 - BABY - SERVED R7 - POORNIMA - SERVED R10 - SHANKUNTHALA V. CHOWTA - SERVED R-12 - H.T. RAJU - SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2018, R2 TO R11 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.03.2020, SERVICE AGAINST R3 TO R5 IS HELD AS DEEMED SERVICE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2017 PASSED ON IA NO.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 IN EX.NO.263/2011 ON FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, REJECTING THE IA FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 32 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. 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.Shreeram Nayak, learned counsel for revision petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for revision petitioner No.1/decree-holder is absent. 2. Sri.G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel for contesting respondent No.14 is present. He supports the order of dismissal of the execution petition. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. To execute the decree passed in O.S.No.9285/1999, an executive petition in Execution Case No.263/2011 was filed. Admittedly, defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and only seven legal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 representatives of defendant No.1 were brought on record leaving behind one more legal representative. 3.2. During the pendency of the suit, one of the legal representatives namely defendant No.1(c) died and there was no application filed to bring the legal representatives of defendant No.1(c) and suit stood abated as against defendant No.1(c). 3.3. Without curing the defect in the suit, suit came to be decreed and in the execution petition, defendant No.1(c) and left out legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 were impleaded as party-judgment- debtors along with the purchaser. Respondent No.14 had purchased the suit property after the suit got abated. 3.4. Learned Judge in the executing Court, noting the defect in the decree passed by the Trial Court, dismissed the execution petition. 3.5. The validity of the dismissal of the execution petition is called in question in this revision petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 4. Sri.Shreeram Nayak, learned counsel for revision petitioner No.2 vehemently contended that the approach of the executing Court in dismissing the execution petition after permitting remaining legal representatives of defendant No.1 to come on record and permitting the purchaser to be impleaded in the execution petition is per se wrong and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Per contra, Sri.G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel representing the purchaser-respondent No.14 supports the impugned order stating that there was no valid decree as against the remaining legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 in the suit so also against the purchaser albeit the alienation has taken place after the suit came to be abated. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 6. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 7. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, the decree that is sought to be executed is a defective decree inasmuch as suit got abated as against defendant No.1(c) and all the legal representatives of defendant No.1 were not brought on record. 8. Mere impleading them in the execution petition would not cure the defect in the decree. The remedy for the plaintiffs was to make necessary application in the pending suit and seek necessary relief. 9. Without there being such a procedure adopted by the plaintiffs/decree-holders, mere impleading the remaining legal representatives and purchaser in the execution petition would not cure the inherent defect in the decree. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40742 CRP No. 113 of 2018 10. Further, since the alienation has taken place after the suit came to be abated against the vendor of respondent No.14, respondent No.14 is required to be heard in the suit; if any such application is filed seeking making good of the defect in the decree. 11. With that observation, following: ORDER i. Revision petition is dismissed. ii. All contentions are kept open to be urged by the parties if any fresh application is filed by the decree-holders. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24