- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17668 WP No. 109193 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 109193 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: M/S. GEOMAC INFRASTRUCTURE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. IRFAN AHMED SAMSI, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SHABARI NAGAR, HUBBALLI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAVEENKUMAR S/O SHARANAYYA CHOUKIMATH, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. BANDIWAD, TQ. HUBBALLI-580 029. 2. SUNITA D/O SHARANAYYA CHOUKIMATH, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BANDIWAD, TQ. HUBBALLI-580 029. … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON MAINTAINABILITY OF EX PETITION IN EX 34/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI ON 26.09.2025 (WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.11 15:01:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17668 WP No. 109193 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Execution Petition No.34/2024 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi. 3. In terms of the said order, the objection filed by the present petitioner, who has been made a party to the execution proceeding, is overruled, and the case is posed for taking further steps. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a party to the decree for partition and, without impleading necessary parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, to the proceeding, the petitioner has been straightaway made a party to the execution proceeding. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that the decree holders ought to have filed an application 1 For short, ‘Code’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17668 WP No. 109193 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code, in case of any obstruction in executing the decree. Without filing the said application, and without filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, the pendente lite purchaser cannot be made a party to the execution proceeding. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. In case, the petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser, there was no obligation on the part of the decree holders to implead the pendente lite purchaser as a party to the execution proceeding. However, there is no bar as such to implead such a person. In case such a person is impleaded, it is for the pendente lite purchaser to bring to the notice of Court that he has acquired certain rights over the property, to the extent of share held by the judgment debtors. 8. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Executing Court. 9. The pendente lite purchaser is permitted to participate in the proceeding to defend his claim to the extent of the title - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17668 WP No. 109193 of 2025 transferred by the judgment debtors in the suit for partition and separate possession. 10. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. 11. Since, this order is passed without hearing the decree holders, liberty is reserved to the decree holders to file an application for modification/recalling of the order, if aggrieved. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26