- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104682 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDAS KANNUR, SR. COUNSEL REP SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI AKTARHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 2. SHRI EZAZHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 3. SHRI SHOUKATHHUSSAIN S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 4. SHRI MUJEEB S/O KHALNDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 5. SHRI JAVEED S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 6. SHRI SHAHID S/O KHALANDARSAHEB DASANKOPPA AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O HALIYAL ROAD, (NEAR GOVT SCHOOL) SAPTAPUR DHARWAD 08 7. SHRI RAJU S/O UTTAM PALANKAR AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. SHIVAPUR COLLONY DHARWAD DEVENDRAPPA S. MARALAPPANAVAR DECEASED BY HIS LR’s 8. PREMA W/O DEVENDRAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL, 11TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08. 9. SMT ASHWINI W/O ANIL S HALASUR AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O NAMITHA COMPUTER INSTITUTE AND SPOKEN ENGLISH TRAINING CENTER NO.49, S.V.COMPLEX, JAMBI SWARI DINNE BYARAPPA CIRCLE-08. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 10. SMT MANJULA S/O MANJUNATH JANAMATTI AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR, 12TH CROS, PLOT NO.20, NEAR TUPAD CLINIC GOKAK 591307 11. SHRI MRITUNJAYA S/O DEVENDRAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. HOTEL BUSINESS R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL 11TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08 12. SMT ARUNA A TUPPAD C/O TUPPAD CLINIC AGED 38 YEARS, R/O VIVEKANAND NAGAR 12TH CROSS, GOKAK 591307 13. SRI GURUPADAPPA SHIVAPPA MARALAPPANAVAR AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O KRISHNA BOARDING AND RESTAURANT VIVEKANAND CIRCLE MARKET, DHARWAD R/O SHIVAPPA CHAWL 11TH CROSS, MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-08. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL AND SRI. S.S. BETURMATH., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. M.P. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT., ADVOCATE FOR R9; NOTICE TO R8, R10-R13 IS S/D) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1-6-2024 MADE IN O.S NO. 119/2020 (MAIN CASE) (O.S. NO. 118/2020 AND O.S. NO. 63/2020 CLUBBED CASES) ORDER ON I.A. NO. 5 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER ALLOW I.A. NO. 5 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Quash the impugned order dated 1.6.2024 made in O.S.No.119/2020 (main case) (O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.63/2020 clubbed cases) order on I.A.No.5 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad produced as Annexure-M by issue of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or directions and further allow I.A.No.5; ii. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed. 2. The facts in the present matter are identical to that in WP No.104649/2024. The present Writ Petition arises out of the impugned order dated 1.6.2024 passed in O.S.No.119/2020 and O.S.No.118/2020 on I.A.No.5 whereunder the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21, Rule 29 of CPC in IA No.5, seeking for stay of the execution of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.78/2013 filed by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 respondent No.7 herein against respondents No.8 to 13. 3. The contention of Sri.Gurudas Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the ownership being vested with HDMC, the so-called assigning of a lease which is illegal and non-est could not maintain an execution proceedings for eviction against respondents No.8 to 13 when HDMC itself is seeking for eviction of respondent No.7 and as such, he submits that if respondent No.7 were to receive the possession from respondents No.8 to 13, grave loss hardship and injury would be caused to HDMC, which has not been considered by the Trial Court. 4. Sri.M.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 - decree holder in O.S No.78/2013 arising out of which Execution Petition No.25/2019 has been filed submits that so long as the assignment of lease in favour of respondent No.7 is not set aside, respondent No.7 is entitled to exercise - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 all his right over the leasehold property including the eviction of the sub-lessees/respondents No.8 to 13 in terms of decree in O.S.No.78/2013. The other submission of Sri.M.P.Kulkarni, is that an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC can only be filed by judgment debtor against the decree holder and not by a third party to the proceedings. 5. Sri.V.M.Sheelavant, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.8-13 - sub-lessees would submit that the sub-lessee would be bound by any order passed in the execution proceedings. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers. 7. As held in the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in WP No.104649/2024, the facts of ownership of HDMC and the lease are not in dispute. OS No.118/2020 and O.S.No.119/2020 having been filed for the reliefs as sought for therein, until those reliefs are - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 granted against respondent No.7, the HDMC cannot exercise any rights against respondent No.7. 8. Insofar as the eviction of respondents No.8 to 13 are concerned, even if respondent No.7 were to evict respondents No.8 to 13, such eviction and possession being vested with respondent No.7 shall enure to the benefit of the land owner-HDMC since respondent No.7 as admitted can only claim the right of a lessee and not as owner of the property. Ownership is continuing to always vests with HDMC. 9. In that background, until necessary judgment is passed in favour of the HDMC in O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.119/2020, the question of the HDMC restraining respondent No.7 from evicting respondents No.8 to 13 would not arise. Respondent No.7 would be entitled to evict respondents No.8 to 13 and take on the possession in itself. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1560 WP No. 104682 of 2024 10. Insofar as the apprehension on part of Sri.Gurudas Kannur, learned Senior Counsel that respondent No.7 may further deal with the property by further leasing, sub-leasing or the like of the property is concerned, it is for the HDMC to file necessary application in relation thereto, to maintain the property in status quo pending the resolution of O.S.No.118/2020 and O.S.No.119/2020 which will have to be considered by the Court seized of the matter in accordance with law. 11. In that view of the matter, no grounds being made out, reserving liberty to HDMC as aforesaid, the Writ Petition stands dismissed /disposed. 12. Pending I.A. stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0