- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.106862 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI. ADIVEPPA S/O IRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALAGALI-591 119, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. GANGAPPA S/O IRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALAGALI-591 119, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. … RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.04.2025, PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI ON I.A. NO.III IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.153/2023, COPY FURNISHED AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, AS THE SAME IS HIGHLY PERVERSE AND ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.25 11:59:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned I Additional Civil Judge., Saundatti in Execution Petition No.153/2023 on I.A.No.III filed under order XXI Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘Code’) staying the execution proceeding initiated by the present petitioner. 2. The present petitioner had obtained a decree for injunction in O.S.No.250 of 2021, on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge, Saundatti and alleging violation of the decree Execution Case No.153 of 2023, is filed on 18.12.2023. 3. The judgment Debtor filed O.S.No.208/2023, for partition and separate possession on 19.06.2023, on the file of learned Civil Judge, Saundatti. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 4. It is to be noticed that an application is filed by the Judgment Debtor on the premise that his suit is pending in O.S.No.208 of 2023 and execution proceeding is to be stayed till the disposal of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that execution petition could not have been stayed as the execution proceeding is filed in respect of a decree, which is obtained prior to the second suit. 6. In support of his contention, he would place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sikandar Mohammad Ali Dalal vs. Smt. Sharada and others1 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 1 WP No.103071/2017, (DD 18.01.2023). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 8. In Para No.13 of the aforementioned judgment, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under; “The issue regarding applicability of Order 21 Rule 29 CPC can be examined from yet another angle. It is an undisputed fact that the instant execution proceedings were instituted by the petitioners/ decreeholders against the respondent/ judgment debtor in the year 2012 while the suit in O.S. No. 22/2016 was instituted by the respondent/ judgment debtor subsequently , i.e., in the year 2016. It is relevant to state that Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to be applicable, it is also essential that the suit ought to be pending as on the date of institution of the execution proceedings and Order 21 Rule 29 CPC will not apply to suits which are instituted subsequent to institution of the execution proceedings. To put it differently, the power of the executing Court to stay its own proceedings can be invoked only in cases where a suit has already been instituted by the judgment debtor prior to institution of the execution proceedings and the same will not apply to suits which are instituted subsequent to institution of the execution proceedings. Any another interpretation or construction placed on Order 21 Rule 29 CPC will lead to disastrous consequence since every judgment debtor would be in a position to scuttle, stall and obstruct the execution proceedings by filing a suit after institution of the execution proceedings seeking to enforce the decrees which have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon judgment debtor. Viewed from this angle also, in the undisputed facts of the instant case which disclose that the execution proceedings were instituted prior to institution of the suit in O.S. No. 22/2016 filed by the respondent/ judgment debtor, Order 21 Rule 29 CPC would be inapplicable to the facts of the instant case and on this score also, the application I.A. No. 12 was liable to be dismissed.” (emphasis supplied) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 9. In view of the principles laid down above, the Court is of the view that the ground is not made out to stay the execution proceedings. The Executing Court, in terms of impugned order, had stayed the proceedings without properly appreciating material on record. 10. Assuming that the Judgment Debtor succeeds in the suit for partition and separate possession, still they can claim the mesne profits in case they are kept out of the possession of the property by virtue of the decree for injunction granted by the Trial Court in the earlier suit. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned I Additional Civil Judge, Saundatti in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16089 WP No. 106862 of 2025 Execution Petition No.153/2023 on I.A.No.III filed under Order XXI Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code, is set-aside. iii. The Executing Court can proceed with the execution proceeding. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 78