- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.33280 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE.DODDEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT KAMBALIPURA VILLAGE, HASIGALA POST, SULIBELE HOBLI. HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 2. SRI.KEMPANNA S/O LATE.DODDEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT KAMBALIPURA VILLAGE, HASIGALA POST, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 3. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 4. SRI.RAMU S/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 6. SRI.PRAKASH S/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 7. SRI.RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PETITIONER NOS. 3 TO 7 ARE R/AT M.SATHYAVARA VILLAGE SULIBELE BELE HOBL HASAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. 8. SMT. ARUNA W/O SHRINIVASA D/O LATE.CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT YASHAVANTHAPURA VILLAGE MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT -563 130. 9. SRI.CHIKKAMARIYAPPA S/O LATE.DODDAEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 10. SRI.S.C.CHIKKAPPAIAH S/O LATE. CHIKKEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 11. SMT.SUJATHAMMA W/O LATE.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 12. SRI.KISHORE S/O LATE.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 13. SRI.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE.RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 14. SRI.S.C.KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE. DODDAEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 PETITIONER 9 TO 14 ARE R/AT M.SATHYAVARA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARENDRA S.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI VENKATESHAPPA @ MARIYAPPA S/O LATE.DODDAKURERU RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT M.SATHYAVARA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADV.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 16/2015 BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE AS PER ANNEXRUE-A AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent. 2. The objection raised by the Registry with regard to issue of maintainability is overruled, in view of the judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Bhudev Mallick Allias Bhudeb Mallick & another -vs- Ranajit Ghoshal & others in Civil Appeal No.2248 of 2025 decided on January 17th, 2025. 3. Learned counsel for respondent contends that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that the order passed is a revisable order. The same cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra. 4. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Executing Court. Petitioners are judgment debtors and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 respondent is the decree holder before the Executing Court in Execution Petition No.16/2015. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent/decree holder filed O.S. No.209/2010 for the relief of Permanent Injunction and the said suit came to be decreed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/judgment debtors preferred R.A. No.116/2022 before the 1st appellate Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the trial Court. In view of disobedience of judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.209/2010, respondent/decree holder filed Execution Petition No.16/2015 under Order XXI Rule 11 r/w Sections 50 and 146 of CPC for violation of the decree passed in O.S. No.209/2010. 6. On consideration of the said application, the Executing Court issued notice and after service of notice, the judgment debtors appeared through their counsel and filed objections denying the allegation of willful - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 disobedience of the judgment passed by the trial Court. In order to prove the willful disobedience of the judgment debtors, the decree holder examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and closed his side. Thereafter, when the case was posted for evidence of the judgment debtors, they filed objections and also filed an application to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. The said application came to be allowed and the judgment debtors were permitted to cross-examine PW.1. Thereafter, the Executing Court noted the evidence of judgment debtors as ‘nil’ and posted the matter for arguments. Ultimately, on hearing learned counsels on either side, the Executing Court allowed the petition filed under Order XXI and Rule 11 r/w Sections 50, 146 of CPC and the judgment debtors were ordered to be detained in Civil Prison for a period of 30 days. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is illegal, arbitrary and requires to be set aside only on the ground that no opportunity was given to the judgment debtors to adduce their evidence after cross-examination of PW.1 and infact the Executing Court has taken the evidence of judgment debtors as ‘nil’. The Executing Court ought to have given an opportunity to the judgment debtors to show cause against the detention. It is further contention of learned counsel that some of the petitioners are aged more than 70 years and some of the petitioners are women and the Executing Court ought to have considered the case of the petitioners sympathetically. The Executing Court has acted with material irregularity and has failed to exercise its discretion judiciously. In order to establish whether disobedience is caused by the judgment debtors, opportunity ought to have been given to them by the Executing Court to disprove the case of decree holder with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 regard to disobedience of the Court order, to which they have great respect. But, the opportunity has not been given by the Executing Court. Therefore, learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/decree holder contends that the Executing Court has accepted objections filed by the judgment debtors, provided opportunity to judgment debtors to cross-examine PW.1/decree holder and thereafter, when the matter was posted for evidence of the judgment debtors, neither the counsel nor the judgment debtors appeared before the Court and as such, evidence of the judgment debtors was taken as ‘nil’ and proceeded to pass orders. The judgment debtors did not avail the opportunity afforded to them by the Executing Court. Therefore, learned counsel sustains the impugned order and contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 9. Having heard learned counsels on either side, it is seen that the Executing Court has provided an opportunity of filing objections and to cross-examine PW.1 to the judgment debtors. Accordingly, the judgment debtors filed objections and cross-examined PW.1 before the Executing Court. Thereafter, when the case was posted for evidence of the judgment debtors, neither the counsel nor the judgment debtors appeared before the Executing Court and as such the Court noted the evidence of judgment debtors as ‘nil’. Thus, though the opportunity was given, the same has not been utilized by the judgment debtors. However, having regard to the grounds urged in the petition and the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners/judgment debtors and considering that many of the petitioners are elderly persons and the fact that the application filed by the decree holder for action against the judgment debtors for disobedience of the judgment passed by the trial Court, this Court deems it appropriate to provide one more - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 opportunity to the judgment debtors to establish their case and to disprove the allegations of the decree holder. 10. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhudev Mallick Allias Bhudeb Mallick & another -vs- Ranajit Ghoshal & others in Civil Appeal No.2248 of 2025 decided on January 17th, 2025, wherein at paragraph-59, the Apex Court held as under: "59. Before we close this matter, we would like to put a question to the executing court as to why it did not deem fit to afford one opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein? What would have happened if the executing court would have permitted the appellants herein to place their written objections on record? It is true that there was some delay on the part of the appellants herein in responding to the summons issued by it, but at the same time, having regard to the severe consequences, the executing court should have been a little more considerate while declining even to take the objections on record and give one opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 order of arrest, detention in a civil prison and attachment of the property. This aspect unfortunately has been overlooked even by the High Court while affirming the order passed by the executing court. The High Court itself could have remanded the matter to the executing court with a view to give an opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein. The supervisory jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is meant to take care of such situations like the one on hand." 11. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one more opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioners in the case on hand. 12. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 10.10.2025 in Execution Petition No.16/2015 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosakote, is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remanded to the Executing Court to provide one more opportunity to the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45404 WP No. 33280 of 2025 petitioners/judgment debtors to adduce their evidence and to putforth their case before the Executing Court. Thereafter, the Executing Court shall decide the matter independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present petition, on merits and in accordance with law. iv) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. v) It is needles to observe that the Executing Court is at liberty to impose costs on either of the parties for unnecessary adjournments. vi) The Executing Court shall decide the matter after recording the evidence, within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26