- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 6940 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. B. RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN), 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O B. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE. BOTH ARE R/O P. B. ROAD, NEAR CHURCH, HARIHAR TOWN, HAIRHARA -577601. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. S. THIPPANNA, S/O SINGADI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BUSINESS PERSON, R/O NEW BHARAMPURA, DODDIBEEDI, HARIHAR TOWN -577 601. 2. K. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE, HARIHARA Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HARLAPURA EXTENSION, HARIHARA TOWN-577 601. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SHOBHA S. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2021 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-N AND TO RESTORE THE EXECUTION PETITION No.16/2017 FOR CONSIDERATION OF IA No.1 DATE 29.9.2018 FILED BY THE JDRs/PETITIONERS (WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HARIHARA. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER Heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Smt. Shobha S. Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtors in O.S. No.116/2013, decided on 27.01.2017, assailing the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Ex.P. No.16/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar (for short 'Trial Court'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 3. Respondent No.1 herein had instituted O.S. No.116/2013 seeking specific performance of a contract. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 27.01.2017, decreed the suit directing the petitioner/defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum. In the alternative, if the defendants failed to make such payment, the plaintiff was granted liberty to have the sale deed executed by depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,43,000/-. 3.1 Under the judgment referred to above, the refund of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be made within six months from the date of the order. As the said direction was not complied with, respondent No.1 instituted Execution Petition No.16/2017. In the said proceedings, the petitioners filed an application on 29.09.2018 seeking permission to deposit decreetal amount after expiry of time granted, which came to be rejected on 17.01.2020. Thereafter, the Executing Court, through the Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder and possession of the schedule property had been delivered, closed the execution proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 3.2 Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed primarily on the ground that the Execution Court failed to consider the petitioners’ application seeking permission to deposit the refund of advance sale consideration before proceeding to close the execution proceedings. 4. There is no representation for the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has remained absent on the earlier dates of hearing. 6. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–decree holder, submits that the decree directed the petitioner/defendants to refund the advance sale consideration with interest at 18% per annum within six months. In the alternative, if the defendant failed to refund the said amount within the stipulated period, the decree holder /respondent No.1 was granted liberty to have the sale deed executed and registered by paying the balance sale consideration through due process of law. 6.1 The learned counsel further submits that as the first direction to refund the amount was not complied with, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 respondent No.1 deposited the balance sale consideration before the Court, pursuant to which the sale deed was executed and registered through the Court Commissioner appointed by the Executing Court. It is stated that the sale deed was executed on 19.01.2021. 6.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not demonstrated any bona fides in depositing the amount directed to be refunded. It is also submitted that the judgment and decree in question have been confirmed in R.S.A. No.182/2021, wherein the fact of execution of the sale deed in the execution proceedings has been duly recorded. 7. Smt. Shobha S. Banakar, learned counsel, appears for respondent No.2. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner has suffered a judgment and decree wherein the Trial Court has issued alternative directions. The petitioner was directed to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum within six months. In the event of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 failure to comply with the said direction, respondent No.1 was permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration and have the sale deed executed and registered through the Court in accordance with law. In view of the petitioner’s failure to comply with the first direction, respondent No.1 has availed the alternative relief, and the sale deed has accordingly been executed. 9. The application seeking to deposit the amount was filed much after the expiry of the period prescribed under the judgment and decree. The judgment is dated 27.01.2017, and the period of six months for refund expired by the end of June 2017. The application for deposit was filed only on 29.09.2018, nearly one year and three months thereafter. 10. It is seen that respondent No.1/decree holder filed an application on 17.01.2020 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner, which came to be allowed, and pursuant thereto, the sale deed was executed. Though the petitioner had filed the application for deposit of money earlier, he did not pursue the same diligently, nor has he demonstrated any bona fides in filing such application belatedly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 11. The sole contention urged is that, during the pendency of the application for deposit of money, the Executing Court ought not to have appointed the Court Commissioner and, therefore, committed an error in closing the execution proceedings. However, from the order dated 17.01.2020, it is evident that the petitioner’s application for deposit of money had already been rejected much prior to the consideration of the decree holder’s application for appointment of the Court Commissioner. 12. This writ petition appears to proceed under the mistaken premise that the application for deposit of money was pending when the Court Commissioner was appointed to execute the sale deed. Be that as it may, in view of the order passed in R.S.A. No.182/2021 dated 12.08.2025, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the reliefs sought in the present petition have been rendered academic and infructuous. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that the Executing Court committed any error in closing the execution petition. Having been satisfied that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40242 WP No. 6940 of 2021 decree had been complied with, the Trial Court rightly closed the execution proceedings. 14. In the light of the above observations, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE PSJ/DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14