- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19087 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. C.K. JAGADISH S/O KRISHNA MURTHY RAJU C.R AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMPURA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 133. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MAMATHA NANDINI D/O LATE C.R. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT M.G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.06.2025 PASSED ON 1.A.NO.1 IN EX. CASE NO.33/2025 BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU, FOUND AT ANNEXURE-L, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this court calling question an order dated 26.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.1 in Execution Case No.33/2025, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking issuance of a delivery warrant. 2. Heard Shri A. Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Miss. Archana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The respondent has leased a shop bearing No.M.A.No.24/4578/3094 RCC building situated at ground floor, nandini complex, opposite Mayura hotel, M.G. Road, Chikkamagaluru for a period of five months. In December- 2024, the petitioner files an application seeking permanent injunction against the respondent from interfering with the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 possession of the property. During the subsistence of the suit, the parties to the lis enter into a compromise in O.S.No.4/2025. The compromise decree was sought to be executed by the respondent by filing an execution in Execution case No.33/2025. The respondent then files an application in I.A.No.1 under Order XXI Rule 36 of the CPC seeking issuance of delivery warrant for the purpose of execution of the compromise decree. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the said application seeking issuance of delivery warrant. The concerned court allows the application, despite the objections. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed his objections. The concerned court ignoring the fact that the compromise decree was passed that the premises should be vacated on or before 30.04.2025, the respondent had filed an application on 28.04.2025, itself. The court therefore should not have allowed the application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that the petitioner did not display any desire of vacating the premises by adhering to the compromise. In that light, two days prior to the expiry of the date on which the vacation of the premises had to be done, had filed the application. But, even today, the petitioner is squatting over the property. She would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A suit in O.S.No.4/2025 comes to be filed seeking injunction. In the said suit, ends in a compromise. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner had to deliver vacant possession of the property. The terms of compromise were as follows: "As per the advice of the elders and well wishers the plaintiff and the defendant settled their disputes as per the following terms and conditions. 1. The Plaintiff agreed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 30-04-2025. 2. The plaintiff today paid a sum of Rs.23.000/- Rupees Twenty three thousand only) through the cheque - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 bearing No. 021822 dated: 15-01-2025 drawn on central bank of India, Chikkamgaluru branch towards the rent of December 2024. The defendant has received the cheque Subject to realization. 3. The Plaintiff undertakes to pay the monthly rent of Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand only) on or before 5th of every month and to get the written acknowledgment for the same. If the Plaintiff fails to pay the rent of January 2025 to April 2025, then the defendant is entitled to recover the same through process of law. 4.If the plaintiff fails to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises on or before 30-04-2025 then the defendant is at liberty to file execution petition and to get the vacate possession of suit schedule premises with the assistance of this Hon'ble court." In terms of the compromise, the plaintiff - the petitioner had agreed to deliver vacant possession on or before 30.04.2025. The fact remains that the petitioner even today has not vacated the premises. Looking at the attitude of the petitioner, the respondent files an application seeking issuance of delivery warrant. The concerned court by the order impugned has permitted issuance of delivery warrant. 8. In the light of the afore-narrated facts, no fault can be found with the respondent asking for issuance of delivery warrant and the court answering the application of the respondent, favorably. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33210 WP No. 19087 of 2025 9. Finding no perversity, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 190 CT: BHK