- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100013 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI KHANAPUR – 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAV. I 2. SHRI. ANNAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI KHANAUR – 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUNANDA P. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI RAYAPPA S/O. IRAPPANNA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. GHATIGEPPA S/O. IRAPANNA RUDRAGOUDAR AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. SHRI. ADIVEPPA S/O. IRAPPANNA RUDRAGOUDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. ADIVEPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, SINCE DECEASED HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESONDENTS 3 TO 5 Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 3. SHRI SHIVALINGA S/O. ADIVEPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANPAUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA RUDRAGOUDAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. SHRI. PRADANI S/O. SHIVAPPA KANAVATTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 6. SMT. SATAWWA W/O. PRADHANI KANAVATTI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLDM R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. 7. SHRI. RAJU S/O. PRADHANI KANAVATTI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ULLAGADDI, KHANAPUR - 591 221, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SANKESHWAR IN EP 173/2012. ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT BY DISMISSING EXECUTION PETITION NO.173/2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. The present petition is filed by judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 in Execution Case No.173/2012 which arose from a judgement and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed in RA No.58/2009 which in turn arose from the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2007 passed in OS No.26/1999. 2. The above suit in OS No.26/1999 had been filed by the respondents/decree holders against the petitioners herein seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, being land bearing survey No.187/12 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. The said suit was initially dismissed. Against which the plaintiffs/decree holders had preferred regular appeal in RA No.58/2009 which was decreed restraining respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein who are the petitioners herein from interfering and obstructing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs/respondents herein. The said judgment and decree has attained finality. Petitioners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 herein who are the judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 respectively claimed to have purchased portion of the suit schedule property in terms of registered sale deed from defendant No.3 who is the husband and father of respondent No.3 to 5 respectively. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed in RA No.58/2009 sought to be executed by the respondent-decree holder by initiating the aforesaid execution proceedings EP No.173/2012 alleging interference at the hands of the petitioners/ judgement debtors Nos.1 and 2. 3. Objections to the same have been filed by the petitioners/judgement debtors contending that they have not violated any decree and they are in possession of the property purchased by them from the date of purchase and that there was a oral partition between the decree holder and his brother. The property of the decree holder and his brother were demarcated and the judgement debtors Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the property from one of the brothers and are in possession of the suit property from the date of purchase and they have not caused any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 interference as contended by the decree holders. The said contentions/objections of the judgement debtor has been negatived and by the impugned order, the Executing Court has ordered attachment of the properties of judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 within a period of 6 months and to sell the same and pay the compensation amount equivalent to the property purchased by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in suit property as per the market value after 6 months to be paid both decree holders. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the matter for sometime submits that petitioners herein have already initiated the suit for partition and they would seek appropriate remedy with respect to the property purchased by them. She further submits that the petitioners would give undertaking and a security before the Executing Court undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent. She also submits that they would not contend that they are in possession of the property, however, subject to they seeking remedy in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 accordance with law and submits that on the petitioner submitting such an undertaking before the Executing Court, the order of attachment may be modified. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioners give an undertaking of they not interfering with a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by furnishing likesum security, they would not insist for sale of the property. 6. The submission is taken on record. 7. The execution petition is filed by the respondent herein seeking enforcement of decree passed in RA No.58/2009 which reads as under: “The regular appeal filed by appellants/plaintiffs under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96(1) of CPC is hereby partly allowed. It is hereby ordered that the respondent No.2 and 3 are hereby restrained by an order of injunction that they should not cause any illegal, interference and obstruction in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff unless and until they take possession of the property purchased by them seeking general partition, under due process of law.” 8. The contention of petitioners herein is that they are already in possession of the property purchased by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 them and as such they have not caused any interference. The executing court however declining to accept the said contention on the premise of its inability to go beyond the decree, passed the following impugned order. “Petition filed by the decree holder is hereby allowed with cost. The properties of Jdr No.2 and 3 to be attached for period of six months. In case, breach of disobedience continues at the expiry of six months then the attached properties of the Jdr No.2 and 3 are to be sold and compensation of amount equivalent to the property purchased by Jdr No.2 and in suit property as per the market value after six months to be paid to both the decree holder equally out of the sale proceeds. Since the details of the properties of Jdr No.2 and 3 are not furnished, the decree holders are directed to furnish the same and get necessary orders for attachment.” 9. Thus, as seen from the impugned order the order of attachment is directed to be in force for a period of six months. However, though by the impugned order properties of the petitioners have been sought to be attached, for a period of six months no details of the properties so attached are furnished. Further, nothing is brought on record by the respondents even to suggest that there has been any breach or disobedience by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 petitioner after the order of attachment so passed. Therefore, question of sale of the properties sought to be attached (though details are not furnished) under the circumstances, may not arise. Appropriate to refer to provisions of Sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 32 of Order 21 of CPC which reads as under: “(3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for six months if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the proceeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of six months from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease.” 10. Thus perusal of the aforesaid provision of law would make it clear that the sale of attached property will have to be only on an application by the decree holder alleging further disobedience during the period when the order of attachment is in force and if in the event of Jdr obeying the decree or no application seeking sale of property is made or if made has been refused the attachment shall cease. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 11. The circumstances contemplated under the aforesaid provisions of Sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 32 of Order 21 of CPC have not arisen though period of six months contemplated under the provisions has already expired. Further, the impugned order passed by the executing court directing sale of the property though appears to be conditional, will have to be read in the light of the aforesaid provisions of law namely requirement of filing an application seeking sale of attached property. 12. Nevertheless under the peculiar fact situation of the matter wherein the petitioners claimed to have purchased the property and have expressed their inclination to seek partition of their property as directed in the decree passed in RA 58/2009, and in the light of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to furnish security before the Executing Court to its satisfaction and also furnishing an undertaking not to interfere with a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent decree holders. Such security and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8518 CRP No. 100013 of 2025 undertaking shall be furnished before the Executing Court to its satisfaction within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On furnishing of such security and undertaking the order of attachment impugned in this petition stands modified and the order passed by the Executing Court directing sale of attached property stands set aside. 13. It is however made clear that the sale of attached property (if the details are furnished as directed by the trial Court) shall only be on strict compliance to the provisions of Sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 32 of Order 21 of CPC as noted above. 14. Since the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the suit property, it is open for them to seek such remedy as may be available and permissible under law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VMB/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17