- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105619 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NIRMALA W/O PADMARAJ MALLADI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. C/O. SANJU JINNAPPA KADEMANI, H.NO. 359, PATIL GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590 006. 2. SMT. SUMANSUVARNA D/O. NEMICHADRA BOACH, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. C/O. SANJU JINNAPPA KADEMANI, H.NO. 359, PATIL GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590 006. 3. SMT. KAVITA W/O. SANJU HUDED, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. PATIL GALLI, HALAGA, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-590 020. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYAK CHINCHANIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVIRAJ C. PATIL, ADVCOATE) AND: SHRI BABU JINNAPPA SANTIBASTWAD, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED TALATHI, R/O. BASTWAD, HALGA, BELAGAVI, PIN-590 020. … RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE LOWER COURT; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.19 12:20:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LOWER COURT IN EP 314/2023 AT ANNEXURE-N FOR CLOSING THE PETITION, DIRECTING THE LOWER COURT TO REOPEN THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS AND DELIVER THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN 15’ X 12’ SITUATED IN BETWEEN LAND OF JINNAPPA KADEMANI AND THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DIRECTING THE LOWER COURT TO TAKE SUITABLE ACTION ON THE BAILIFFS INVOLVED IN THE UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN 15’ X 12’ SITUATED IN BETWEEN LAND OF JINNAPPA KADEMANI AND THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Respondent though served is not represented. 3. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.03.2025 in E.P.No.314/2023. This order is passed on the memo filed by the petitioners who are the Judgment Debtors in Execution Petition No.314/2023 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi. The said Execution Petition is filed by the respondent to execute the decree in O.S.No.285/2015. The operative portion of the decree reads as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 “The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff measuring 75’ X 12 ft within 3 months. It is made it clear that defendants No.1 to 3 are still the owners of the 15’ X 12 ft situated in between land of Jinnappa Kademani and plaintiff. It is further ordered and decreed that plaintiff is entitled for the damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. (two thousand) from the date of suit till he gets actual possession of the property from defendants No.1 to 3.” 4. It is noticed from the said decree that the Court has held that defendants No.1 to 3 who are the petitioners herein and the Judgment Debtors in Execution Petition are the owners of the property measuring 15’ X 12 feet situated between the land of Jinnappa Kademani and the plaintiff. 5. The bailiff pursuant to the order passed by the Executing Court has delivered the possession of the property measuring 75’x12’ feet to the plaintiff. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after the bailiff’s report is submitted to the Court intimating execution of the possession warrant, Judgment Debtors have filed a memo stating that the bailiff has delivered the possession of the property for which there is no decree for possession i.e., the property measuring 15’x12’ feet. The said memo is rejected on the premise that the petitioners/ Judgments Debtors have not raised any objection at the time of delivery of possession. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before the bailiff, objection was raised on the premise that the possession of the property measuring 15’x12’ feet cannot be delivered. 8. Executing Court has rejected the memo without holding any enquiry. This Court is of the view that the enquiry ought to have been held and petitioners should have been permitted to prove their contention that they have been dispossessed from the property measuring 15’x12’ feet for which there was no decree for possession. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 9. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Executing Court to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioners/Judgment Debtors have been dispossessed from the petition property measuring 15’x12’ feet while executing decree in O.S.No.285/2015. 10. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 11. All contentions are kept open. 12. Petitioners shall appear before the Executing Court on 08.12.2025 and the Executing Court shall issue notice to the Advocate for the decree holder and thereafter to consider the claim in accordance with law. 13. If it is found that the judgment debtors have been dispossessed in the Execution proceeding from the property for which there is no decree for possession then the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15357 WP No. 105619 of 2025 petitioners should be put in possession of the property by way of restitution. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 73