- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 14501 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRIRAMAPPA S/O. LATE THIMMAKONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. ANANTHAMMA W/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT TENKAYALAMAKALAPALLI (VILLAGE), KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O. LATE SUBBARAYAPPA, W/O. LATE HIMMAKONDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O. VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. HRUTHIK CHARAN S/O. VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4. SUVARNAMMA D/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 5. DEEPA D/O. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 R/AT TENKAYALAMAKALAPALLI, (VILLAGE), KASABA HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHARATH.S.RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R4 & R5-STANDS WAIVED V/O/D:27.08.2021) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BAGEPALLI IN EX.NO.19/2020, DATED 02.11.2020 WHICH PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W U/S 151 OF CPC, AT ANNEXURE-A, ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BAGEPALLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 02.11.2020 in Ex.No.19/2020 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli [hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order]. By the Impugned Order, an interim application filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 respondents/Decree Holders has been allowed and police protection has been ordered as directed by the Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors submits that the Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors have rights in the property and that the police protection could not be granted to the Respondents/Decree-Holders. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondents/Decree-Holders on the other hand submits that the Respondents/Decree Holders had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction being O.S.No.139/2012. By the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2014, the said suit was decreed with the findings that Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors are restraining by way of permanent injunction with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors filed an appeal, R.A.No.40/2014 which was also dismissed on 11.12.2017. Since the judgment could not be executed, an execution petition Ex.No.19/2020 was filed by the respondents/Decree-Holders. In this petition, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 application was filed to obtain police protection and the impugned order has been passed allowing the same. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Judgment-Debtors submits that the lis between the parties has attained finality since the order passed in regular first appeal has not been challenged by the Petitioners/Judgment-debtors. In addition, it is contended that a civil suit has also been filed by the Respondents/Decree-Holders which is pending adjudication before the Trial court. Thus, it is submitted that Impugned Order could not have been passed. 5. Concededly, there is a decree which has been passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. It is not disputed by either parties that, execution proceedings are pending for the enforcement of such decree. 6. The learned Trial Court found that the petitioners/Judgment-Debtors are prima-facie interfering with the possession of the Respondents/Decree Holders - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 and thus passed an order protecting the subject matter of the decree. It is apposite to set out paras 13 and 14 of the order passed by the Learned Trial Court in this regard: “13. In the instant case also this court had decreed the suit of the DHRs No.1 in OS.No.139/2012 and inspite of permanent injunction order, the defendants are tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property and also peaceful enjoyment of DHR No. 1. Even on 08.06.2020 despite of lodging a complaint by the DHRS NO.1 before jurisdictional police, the police refused to give police protection on the ground that there is no direction to the police and therefore, the DHR No.1 has knock up the door of this court for implementing the order of injunction passed by this court. Hence, when the injunction granted by this court and there is clear violation by the parties prove that there is violation of the injunction, it is the duty of the court to protect its own order and therefore, the DHRs have made out prima facie case and also sufficient grounds to allow their application. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative. 14. Point No.2:- For the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Interim application filed by the DHRs U/0 39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w.151 of CPC is hereby allowed. Consequently, the police protection order issued by this court against the JDRs dtd:10.08.2020 is extended till the disposal of this petition.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Given these findings, the fact that the application was filed for temporary injunction seeking to protect the subject matter of the decree, which application was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50864 WP No. 14501 of 2021 allowed by the Learned Trial Court giving a finding that there is a violation of interest of the decree holder does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. The rights of the parties have been agitated before the Learned Trial Court in a suit, O.S.No.472/2018. The Executing Court is well within its jurisdiction to come to the aid of respondents/Decree-Holders against a litigant who violates the temporary injunction order. Given the undisputed facts in this case, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order which would require interference by this Court. 9. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA