- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22341 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI P.SELVA KUMAR S/O LATE A.PERUMAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O K-64, L.N.PURAM SRIRAMPURAM POST BENGALURU – 560 021. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RATNA N.SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT OWNED BY THE GOVT. OF KARNATAKA CAUVERY BHAVAN, DISTRICT OFFICE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009. REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELE) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEVARAJU H. V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.06.2025 IN E. P NO. 1636/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE –C THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – judgment debtor No.2 is before this Court calling in question an order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.1636/2015, by which an attachment warrant of movables is issued against the petitioner. 2. Heard Smt. Ratna N., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devaraju H.V., learned counsel for respondent. 3. The petitioner is judgment debtor No.2. The respondent is the decree holder. The respondent-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), institutes a suit in O.S.No.5796/2011, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 on the score that the defendants are jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,410/- along with interest. The concerned Court passes the following order: “7. On the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.3,25,410/-? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of Rs.3,25,410/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.? 3. What Order or Decree ? 8. To prove the case of the plaintiff, one witness is examined as PW.1 and got marked with 39 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-39. The defendant No.6 has examined one witness as DW.1 and got marked two documents as per Exs.D-1 & 2. 9. Heard the arguments of Sri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri B.Μ.Α., learned counsel for the 6th defendant. Perused the materials on record. 10. My findings on the above issues are as under: - (1) ISSUE NO.1 : Partly Affirmative. (2) ISSUE NO.2 : Partly Affirmative. (3) ISSUE NO.3 : As per final order for the following: REASONS 11. ISSUE NO.1:- This is a very simple case filed by the plaintiff KPTCL against the defendants for claiming a sum - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 of Rs.3,25,410/- along with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiff, which is a registered company was a lessee under the 1st defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that the 6th defendant is the owner of the property bearing No.14/3, Corporation Nos.2/1 and 2/2 situated on Nrupathunga road, Bangalore, had entered into lease agreement with M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., on 4.2.2002. As per that lease agreement this Canara Leasing Company had built a building took it for lease for a period of 30 years and as on the date of the expiry of lease period M/Canara Leasing Authority Ltd., shall surrender the possession of the building to this 6th defendant, which is an undisputedly owner of the landed property. 12. By virtue of that lease hold right in the hands of this M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., it further entered into an agreement with the 1 defendant company for leasing out his premises situated in 3rd, 4th and 5th floors. Accordingly the plaintiff approached this 1 defendant company and entered into lease agreement on 2.2.2001 for getting a lease of building to the extent of 2000 sq.ft., in the 5th floor of the building on the monthly rent of Rs.26,000/- with interest free refundable deposit of Rs.2,60,000/-. It is also an undisputed fact that during 2003 the plaintiff further entered into lease agreement with the 1 defendant to lease of the building to the extent of 500 sq.ft., in the 4th floor for the rent of Rs.9,990/-and also payment of security deposit of Rs.99,900/-. So, by virtue of these two lease agreements no doubt this plaintiff's contention that he was in possession and enjoyment of the respective portions in 4th and 5th floor of the building which was constructed by M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., given this lease hold rights to 1st defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the partners in 1st defendant company. But the 2nd defendant took the contention that he is not partner in the 1st defendant company nor the plaintiff given the interest free security - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 deposit to him, so he is not liable to pay amount of this plaintiff. On the other hand, in support of his written statement contentions this 2nd defendant did not step into the witness box or examined plaintiff's witness. So, his contention is not at all proved before this Court. Under such circumstances, in this present juncture, this Court is able to come to the conclusion that the defendants 2 to 5 are the partners in this 1 defendant company which had given lease hold rights to this plaintiff as stated above. The defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5 have not contested this case. 13. It is also the contention of this plaintiff that during the matter was stood like this, the 6th defendant had filed a suit against Nandaki Business Solutions Private Ltd., etc., in OS 8045/2006 believing upon the fact that these three firms are belonging to the defendants 2 to 5. But, in that suit this 7th defendant was got impleaded and finally that suit was also compromised in between 6th defendant and 7th defendant. No doubt, in that compromise petition it was agreed in between 6th defendant and 7th defendant that the tenants whom are in possession of the entire building shall continue as tenants under the 6th defendant as well as interest free refundable security deposit are also required to be transferred by the 7th defendant to the 6th defendant. But according to 6th defendant, such interest free refundable security deposit was not transferred. Hence, they are not liable to pay the claim made out by this plaintiff. The said contention of 6th defendant is no doubt proved through the mouth of their witness and documentary evidence. Under such circumstances, now it is to be ascertained that whether the 6th defendant is liable to pay the interest free security deposit or suit claim made by this plaintiff or other defendants 1 to 5 and 7 are liable to pay the said amount. It is also an undisputed fact that by virtue of the letter issued by this 6th defendant the lease hold rights of the plaintiff was attorned with this 6th defendant. It is also an undisputed fact that since from that date the 6th defendant had received up to date rent from the plaintiff - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 and also a formal agreement was taken place as per Ex.D-1. Such being the fact and evidence on record, whether the burden can be shifted on the shoulder of the 6th defendant to pay the suit claim ? 14. In this regard the plaintiff has examined their witness and got marked with the documents. In support of the plaint averments PW.1, Chief Engineer has been examined, who clearly reiterated the plaint averments. In his cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the 6th defendant, it was proved from his mouth that 6th defendant is not a party to the lease agreements entered into between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff, the advance of security deposit is paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant and not to the 6th defendant. So, these admissions will go to prove that there is no such lesser or lessee agreement or relationship exist in between plaintiff and 6th defendant during that point of time because three agreements are taken place in between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 to 5 are the partners in the 1st defendant firm. Under such circumstances, whether still there is liability on the part of the 6th defendant to pay the interest free security deposit in favour of this plaintiff. 15. It is also the case of the 6th defendant that they filed a suit against the 1st defendant and their partners and the 6th defendant has got impleaded in OS No. 8045/2006 and later on the matter was compromised. So, by virtue of the compromise conditions taken place in between 6th and 7th defendants, the 1st defendant is required to return the interest free security deposit taken from the tenants of the said building to this 6th defendant. In this regard PW.1 now made an admission that "It is true to suggest that advance security deposit of Rs.52,89,500/- is with the defendants 1 to 5 and 7 and not with the 6th defendant. The entire dealings of the 1st defendant are now transferred to this 7th defendant. Hence, there was such a compromise taken place in between 6th and 7th defendants in the presence of the 1st defendant of this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 case". But, it is the further contention of the 6th defendant that in spite of notices issued to the 1st defendant or defendant, so far they have not transferred the interest free security deposit to the tune of Rs.52,89,500/-. Hence, they are not liable to return the demanding of security deposit amount made by this plaintiff with the 1st defendant. No doubt, this fact is not at all disputed and it is even otherwise proved by the plaintiff's witness and their documentary evidence itself. But PW.1 in his further cross-examination denied the suggestion put to him that 6th defendant informed them to refund the advance security deposit at the time of filing the suit premises. No doubt, by virtue of Ex.D-1 this plaintiff's lease hold rights was attorned in favour of the 6th defendant by virtue of the compromise taken place in between 6th and 7th defendants. Later on by virtue of this Ex.D-1 lease deed entered into between the plaintiff and 6th defendant, the plaintiff's lease hold rights was But on continued under the 6th defendant. perusing this Ex.D-1 this Court is entitled to come to conclusion that while executing the said lease agreement this plaintiff has tendered the interest free deposit security deposit in favour of this 6th defendant. But, in the further cross-examination PW.1 admitted that "It is true to suggest that in Ex.D-1 6th defendant has made it clear that it has not received any security deposit from the 1st defendant and it is not liable to pay the same". He further admitted that " It is true to suggest that defendant No.6 has wrote a letter to the plaintiff as per Ex.P-12 and made it very clear that they have not received the security deposit from the 1** defendant So, these admissions will go to prove the contention of the defendants that they have not received interest free security deposit amount from the 1 defendant in spite of compromise taken place in between the 6th and 7th defendants and the 7th defendant or 1 defendant has to transfer the advance security deposit in favour of the 6th defendant totally amounting to Rs.52,89,500/-. But strictly speaking there is no scope for transfer of the security deposit when the lease hold rights - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 was seized into operation in between the lesser or lessee. When separate lease agreement was come into attorn as per Ex.D-1, then it is the duty of the plaintiff to take back the security deposit amount from the 1st defendant or 7th defendant and to deposit the same with the 6th defendant. On the other hand, by believing the capacity of the plaintiff, the 6th defendant had accepted the lease hold rights. Accordingly, plaintiff continued as a lessee not 6th defendant by virtue of Ex.D-1 dated 6.10.2010. 16. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P-1 - Authorization letter, Ex. P-2 is the letter issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, thereby informed the plaintiff that the lease between M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., and 6th defendant were finalized by virtue of the lease agreement entered into between them dated 4.2.2002. Hence, plaintiff is further requested to make arrangement to release the interest free security deposit amount immediately. So, this letter written by the 1st defendant will goes to prove that relationship of lesser and lessee in between M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., and this 1st defendant was seized in to operation because the land owner 6th defendant had closed their relationship with M/s Canara Leasing Company Ltd., in which this 1st defendant took possession of the building on separate agreement. Under such circumstances, when the 1 defendant itself given such letter to this plaintiff, then they have to make arrangement with that defendant itself for releasing of the interest free security deposit made by them. Further, Ex.P-3 is lease agreement dated 2.2.2001 and Ex.P-4 is the lease agreement dated 1.7.2003 and renewed lease agreement dated 3.2.2005 were took place in between plaintiff and 1st defendant through the partner, who is the 4th defendant here. By virtue of these three agreement the plaintiff took possession of the respective portion of the building and also paid amount towards interest free security deposit to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-and Rs.99,900/- separately. When such being the case, whenever lease period was seized in to operation, when this defendant was also seized became lesser to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 demise premises, it is the bounden duty of the 1st defendant to return the interest free security deposit amount. 17. No doubt, it is proved from the other evidence on record that by virtue of the compromise took place in between 6th and 7th defendants, the deposit amount of all tenants in the said building is to be transferred to this 6th defendant. When such being the case, if the 1st defendant informed to this plaintiff that they have already taken action in this regard, then the plaintiff has to claim back the said amount from the 6th defendant. But, it is proved from the mouth of PW.1 and available documentary evidence, it is very clearly revealed to this Court that the said security deposit amount so far not transferred to this 6th defendant. Such being the case, it is not right to come to conclusion that the plaintiff had case against the 6th defendant also. 18. In Ex. P-7 - Letter the 6th defendant categorically replied to this plaintiff that till 13.2.2007 itself the 1st defendant did not transfer the security deposit amount to them and along with that letter 6th defendant also sent a copy of compromise petition took place in between 6th defendant and 7th defendant. This 7th defendant is shown as defendant No.4 in OS 8045/2006 as found in the copy of the compromise petition, which was sent accompanied with this Ex.P-7 letter to this plaintiff. Ex.P-8 is the letter sent by the 6th defendant to this plaintiff for attornment of their tenancy in favour of this 6th defendant since 1.9.2006. Hence, the 6th defendant has requested to pay the rent or lease hold amounts to them onwards. In this regard, the 1st defendant also issued letter on 27.9.2006 to this plaintiff, thereby requested the plaintiff to attorn their tenancy under this 6th defendant and also to pay the rent to them since from 1.9.2006 onwards. So, it is the contention of the plaintiff that they have attorned their tenancy or their lease hold rights with the 6th defendant because of the reason that the 1 defendant is no more became the lesser to the said letter dated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 building. By writing Ex.P-10 2.7.2007, this 1st defendant made it very clear to this plaintiff that they are doing process of transferring the interest free security deposit to this 6th defendant, which is amounting to Rs.3,15,410/- after deducting their charges. Further through letter dated 16.7.2007 as per Ex.P-11, the 1st defendant further made their case very clear that this 6th defendant is in no way responsible for repayment of the security deposit amount. In Ex.P-12 letter dated 11.6.2007 the 6th defendant made their case very clear that by virtue of the compromise in between themselves and M/s Nandaki Business Solutions (the firm connected with 7th defendant) the security amount is not received by them from this M/s Nandaki Business Solutions till then. That is why they did not demanded the security deposit amount from the plaintiff since it was with the 1 defendant during that point of time. After hearing all those things, the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 31.8.2010 as per Ex.P- 14 in favour of the defendants 6 and 7 and finally filed this suit for of the amount. recovery Under these circumstances and on the basis of the available evidence on record, this Court has to see that whether still the 6th defendant is liable to pay the amount or it is the liability of other defendants to pay the security deposit amount to this plaintiff. 19. It is proved from the mouth of DW.1 - M.R. Prasanna Kumar that plaintiff continued the tenancy under the 6th defendant from 1.9.2006 and finally they have delivered the vacant possession of the property to them on 29.10.2010. This witness has deposed on behalf of 6th defendant Society. So, it is proved from his mouth that after 29.10.2010, the plaintiff is no more there as tenant because they have vacated the premises. Under such circumstances, during this point of time still the interest free security deposit amount is not transferred to this plaintiff. It is the duty of the other defendants to return the deposit amount and not by this 6th defendant. Because absolutely there is no agreement to the effect that they have received the security deposit amount from - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 the plaintiff admittedly the 1st defendant is having the said deposit amount, which is belonging to this plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 are the partners of the 1st defendant and 7th defendant is also part and parcel of the defendants 1 to 5. Under these circumstances, there is liability on the head of defendants 1 to 5 and 7 only to return the deposit amount to this plaintiff. 20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently canvassed his arguments that since the 6th defendant has cancelled his lease hold agreement with the Canara Leasing Company Ltd., because of that the relationship in between 1 defendant and that Canara Leasing Company Ltd., was seized into operation as well as by virtue of the compromise took place in between defendant Nos.6 and 7 in OS 8045/2006, since 7th defendant is liable to transfer the deposit amount in favour of the 6th defendant. But, none of the defendants are came forward to return the deposit amount in spite of their demand as well as vacating the premises, thereby how the plaintiff to wander from pillar to pillar to get their amount. Such being the case, all the defendants are liable to pay the amount to them. 21. The learned counsel for the defendant No.6 is argued that since 6th defendant had not given the right of lessee to this plaintiff initially nor received the deposit amount as claimed by them, the 1st defendant had only received amount and gave the possession to this plaintiff, by virtue of the present agreement dated Ex.D-1, they are not liable to pay any amount to this plaintiff. Hence, there is no liability upon them to pay any amount claimed in this suit. 22. On the basis of the above made discussions and after taking into consideration of the said arguments, this Court also come to the clear conclusion that absolutely there is no liability on this 6th defendant because of the reason that they have not received any amount from the plaintiff towards interest free security deposit amount. Hence, it is - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 not right and proper also in fastening the liability on them. On the other hand, all the other defendants are liable including the 2nd defendant. Hence, I answer issue No.1 partly affirmative. 23. ISSUE NO.2: The plaintiff had claimed the interest free security deposit amount given to the 1st defendant in two occasions and also claimed notice charges of Rs.10,000/-, in all their claim is restricted to Rs.3,25,410/- and that amount is liable to the paid by the respective defendants. Further the plaintiff has also claimed future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Except the 2nd defendant none of them have contested the suit. The contention of the 2nd defendant is already rejected by this Court. Under such circumstances, all the defendants 1, 5 and 7 are liable to pay the future interest since the plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, doing public utility service. Accordingly, I answer this issue partly affirmative. 24. ISSUE NO. 3 : For the above made discussions in the above said issues, I proceed to pass the following :- ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed for Rs.3,26,410/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and ten) only with costs of Rs.5,000/- and future interest is fixed at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till payment on Rs.3,15,410/-. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 7 are liable to pay the said amount with interest to this plaintiff. Draw decree accordingly.” Based on the aforesaid reasons, the suit is partly decreed for an amount of Rs.3,26,410/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- and - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 future interest fixed at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment. 4. The decree so passed by the concerned Court is not ordering the amount or the interest jointly and severally, though the suit was instituted for payment jointly and severally. 5. The plaintiff institutes an execution petition in Execution Petition No.1636/2015. The petitioner - judgment debtor No.2 after service of notice, appears before the concerned Court and files a memo on 8.6.2017 that he is ready and willing to deposit his share of the amount, which would be Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner deposits the said amount, respondent - the decree holder does not take any steps to recover the amount from other judgment debtors on many occasions till 23.11.2019. The case was adjourned before the Executing Court only to take steps to serve judgment debtor Nos.1, 3 to 6. Without taking steps, an application is filed before the concerned Court under Order XXI Rule 11 of the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 Code of Civil Procedure for attachment warrant of the movables only against the petitioner, even then, others were not served. The petitioner is said to have made arrangements and paid Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments, one on 23.11.2019 when he appeared and another on 08.11.2024 during the execution proceedings. 6. The executing Court fails to consider that the decree holder is wanting to take steps to serve other judgment debtors No.3 to 6. Notwithstanding the clear address available at the hands of the executing Court, attachment warrant is issued only against the petitioner for attaching the entire balance amount of Rs.9,87,516/-. The decree does not indicate that it should be paid by all judgment debtors joint and several. The petitioner has diligently approached the concerned Court and paid, that he had to pay. Therefore, notwithstanding that the petitioner though had paid his share of liability, the attachment warrant of movables is issued only against the petitioner. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 7. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and reasons, also the act of decree holder not taking any steps to serve other judgment debtors and saddling the entire liability upon the petitioner, since he himself volunteered to appear before the concerned Court and made the payment, the executing Court cannot proceed against the petitioner or permit the executing Court to take the issue to its logical conclusion, which would become contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned order dated 05.06.2025, stands obliterated. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 05.06.2025, passed by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in Ex.P.No.1636/2015, stands closed, insofar as the petitioner – judgment debtor No.2. c. It is made clear that this order does not become applicable to other judgment debtors. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35004 WP No. 22341 of 2025 d. The concerned Court shall take necessary steps against other judgment debtors in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC/NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92