- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 36503 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.C. UGREGOWDA S/O CHALUVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARSS R/A KALENAHALLY VILLAGE NOW R/A BEHIND SHANIDEVRA TEMPLE NEAR WATER TANK, T.B. BADAVANE NAGAMANGALA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJU T, ADV.) AND: 1. NAGARATHNA DEAD BY LRs 1a. N. RAMANINGAIAH S/O NINGAIAH H/O NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 1b. SRI KUMARSWAMY S/O RAMANINGAIAH N & SMT. NAGARTHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 1c. SMT. LATHA N.R. D/O RAMANINGAIAH N & SMT. NAGARTHNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 1d. SRI RAJU S/O RAMANINGAIAH N Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 & SMT. NAGARTHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT OLD POST OFFICE ROAD 6TH WARD, NAGAMANGALAL TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. 2. B.N. SHAKUNTHALA W/O T.H. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O T.B. EXTENSION NEAR NOBEL SCHOOL B.M. ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.R. VISHWANTH, ADV., FOR R-2; SRI N.T. HAREESH KUMAR, ADV., FOR PROPOSED LRS OF DECEASED R-1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.7.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 91 R/W 151 CPC IN EXECUTION CASE NO.39/2017 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA VIDE ANNEXURE-F CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 24.07.2019 passed on IA.no.4 filed under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC in Execution Petition No.39/2017 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamanagala. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Respondent no.1 herein had filed O.S.No.69/2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 17.01.2017. Subsequently, the decree-holder has filed Execution Petition No.39/2017 before the Executing Court for executing the decree dated 17.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.69/2015. In the said proceedings, IA.no.4 is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC, which was opposed by the decree-holder. The Executing Court vide the order impugned having allowed IA.no.4, has further directed issuance of delivery warrant in respect of the suit schedule property and the court bailiff was directed to deliver physical possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the decree-holder as per the sale deed dated 07.09.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the judgment- debtor has executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 27.11.2017 and has put the petitioner in possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner has cleared the entire loan amount which was borrowed by the judgment-debtor by mortgaging the suit schedule property. Though the Executing Court has stated in the operative portion of the order that IA.no.4 is allowed, a subsequent direction is issued for delivery of physical possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the decree-holder and to the said extent, the order impugned is bad in law. He, accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner claims under the judgment-debtor and he has no independent right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, his objection is not maintainable and no inquiry is required to be conducted on the application in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of USHA SINHA VS DINA RAM & OTHERS - (2008)7 SCC 144. He, accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that IA.no.4 is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC. Respondent no.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 herein who is the decree-holder in O.S.No.69/2015, has filed Execution Petition No.39/2017 with a prayer to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.69/2015. The original defendants in O.S.No.69/2015 who are judgment-debtors are party respondents in the execution proceedings. Petitioner claims that he has purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed from judgment-debtor no.2 - Smt. B.N.Shakunthala who is the wife of judgment-debtor no.1 - T.H.Ramakrishnegowda. 7. Even according to the petitioner, sale deed was executed in his favour by the judgment-debtor on 27.11.2017. The material on record would go to show that the suit in O.S.No.69/2015 was decreed on 17.01.2017 itself. Therefore, it is very clear that, as on the date of execution of the sale deed by the judgment-debtor in favour of the petitioner herein, a decree was already passed and after the said decree, the judgment-debtor has entered into sale transaction with the petitioner. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Sinha's case supra, has held that any person who claims under the judgment- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 debtor, cannot maintain the application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC and such an application is liable to be dismissed as not pressed. No inquiry is required to be conducted on such an application filed by the obstructor. 9. According to the petitioner, he is put in possession of the suit schedule property by the judgment-debtor under the sale deed dated 27.11.2017 which is undisputedly executed after the suit for specific performance was decreed. 10. The material on record would go to show that since the judgment-debtors had not come forward to execute the sale deed in compliance of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.69/2015, a sale deed was executed in favour of the decree-holder through the process of the court on 07.09.2018, and it is only thereafter, a prayer was made on behalf of the decree-holder to issue delivery warrant in respect of the suit schedule property. 11. A reading of the order impugned would go to show that the Executing Court has considered the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 read with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 Section 151 CPC, as if it is an application filed by the decree- holder and it is under these circumstances, the order impugned has been passed. 12. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Executing Court has not at all applied its mind to the contents of the application and in the operative portion of the order impugned, has observed that IA.no.4 filed by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed, and thereafter, has issued delivery warrant in favour of the decree- holder and also has directed the court bailiff to deliver physical possession of the suit schedule property as per the sale deed dated 07.09.2018 in favour of the decree-holder. To the said extent, the order impugned which is passed without proper application of mind, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 11. The writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 24.07.2019 passed on IA.no.4 filed under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC in Execution Petition No.39/2017 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Nagamanagala, is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court with a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47837 WP No. 36503 of 2019 direction to the Executing Court to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC, afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court herein above. It is made clear that such an exercise shall be done by the Executing Court, as expeditiously as possible, and the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 CPC shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK