- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 284 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: SRI. B.N. SHIVARAM S/O LATE B. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT BUDENAHALLI VILLAGE KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK-572 132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RONALD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK .S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA BANK HEAD OFFICE SITUATED IN MANGALORE ESTABLISHED BRANCH OFFICE AT MADHUGIRI HIGH SCHOOL ROAD IN MADHUGIRI TOWN-572 132. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BRANCH MANAGER 2. SMT. B.N. LAKSHMIDEVI @ JAYASHRI W/O M.S. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT D. NO. 1737/14 EAST END MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 069. 3. SMT. B.N. PUTTAMA W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF 8TH B CROSS 8TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 010. 4. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O C. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 5, 11-A CROSS PRASHANTHNAGAR BENGALURU-560 071. 5. SMT. B.N. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT SRI NILATYA VINAYAKANAGAR, GAUBIDANURU CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208. 6. SMT. B.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O S.R. CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO. 313, OUT HOUSE 7TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANESH .A, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.S. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED IN MA NO. 5009/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU SITTING AT MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Ronald for Sri.Vivek S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ganesh A., learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6. There is a delay of 133 days in filing the revision petition. Accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavit, delay is condoned. 2. By consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. The defendant in OS.No.67/1986 is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court namely IV Additional District and Session Judge, Tumakuru sitting at Madhugiri in MA.No.5009/2019 in this revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1) A suit in OS.No.67/1986 came to be filed by the Karnataka Bank, which is respondent No.1 against Sri.B.Nanjegowda, Sri.B.N.Narasimhamurthy and Sri.P.N.Nagappa for the following reliefs: "Wherefore, plaintiff prays for a Judgment and Decree against the defendants for Rs.1,82,546-05p together with costs and current interest at Rs.21.50% per annum with quarterly compounded rests from 15-11-1986 till the date of realization from the defendants with such other reliefs as the Court deems fit to grant to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case". 3.2) Said suit came to be decreed and for executing the said decree, an Execution Case No.39/1990 for recovery of sum of Rs.3,04,617.65/-. 3.3) The revision petitioner being the son of defendant No.1-B.N.Nanjagowda, after his death, one of the children of B.N.Nanjagowda filed a miscellaneous - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 petition in Miscellaneous No.6/2003 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madhugiri with a prayer to set aside the decree passed against B.N.Nanjagowda and others. An application was also filed by him vide IA.No.16 under Article 21 Rule 90 objecting for the execution of the decree. Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 47 of the CPC seeking the prayer that order dated 17.08.2002 in Execution Case No.39/1990 needs to be set aside. Said miscellaneous petition on merits came to be dismissed. 3.4) Against the said miscellaneous case, said order passed in Miscellaneous No.6/2003, an appeal came to be filed in MA.No.5009/2019 under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC challenging the validity of the said order. There was a delay in filing such an appeal. 3.5) Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, but also on merits of the appeal, noting that subsequent to filing of the suit, the present revision petitioner has clandestinely - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 created a partition deed only with an idea to defeat the rights of the Karnataka Bank in respect of the suit claim. 3.6) Being further aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has filed the present revision petition on following grounds. 4. Sri.Ronald, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court misdirected itself in understanding the scope of the appeal while deciding the fact in issue namely the execution petition could not have been proceeded in view of Section 47 of CPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. 5. Counsel for respondent No.1-Karnataka Bank is absent today. 6. Counsel for remaining respondents supports the order passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 7. In the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that it is Sri.B.Nanjegowda who mortgaged the suit property and obtained the loan. Other two defendants are the sons of B.N.Narasimhamurthy and P.N.Nagappa. 9. Present revision petitioner is another son of B.Nanjegowda who was not a party to the suit. Admittedly, after the death of B.Nanjegowda, his legal representatives namely, B.N.Lakshmidevi @ Jayashri, B.N.Puttamma, B.N.Lalithamma, B.N.Shakunthalamma and B.N.Vijayalakshmi did not join the revision petitioner in pursuing the matter in miscellaneous No.6/2003. 10. Miscellaneous case No.6/2003 is filed by the revision petitioner under Section 47 of CPC to hold that execution proceeding is improper. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 11. Admittedly, an application was also filed by the very same revision petitioner in the execution case under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC objecting for the execution of the decree. Said application was numbered as IA.No.16 On merits, said application came to be dismissed. 12. Pertinently, the revision petitioner did not challenge the order passed on IA.No.16 and therefore, it has become final. Instead, he filed the petition under Section 47 of CPC, which was also dismissed on merits. Instead of challenging the order passed on IA.No.16, the revision petitioner chose to challenge the order passed on Miscellaneous Case No.6/2003 in MA.No.5009/2019 before the District Court, Tumakuru, Sitting at Madhugiri. 13. Learned District Judge, taking note of the fact that order on IA.No.16 in the execution case having become final, the revision petitioner could not have taken a circuitous route in re-agitating the same issue by filing a miscellaneous petition under Section 47 of CPC and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 challenged the order passed by the Court on said miscellaneous case in the form of miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII. When said factual aspect was posed to the revision petitioner before the First Appellate Court, a feeble attempt came to be made by the revision petitioner to convert the miscellaneous appeal into an appeal on the order passed by the Executing Court on IA.No.16, whereby, application filed by the revision petitioner under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC came to be dismissed. 14. However, the First Appellate Court did not permit the conversion of the miscellaneous appeal into regular appeal permitting the revision petitioner to challenge the order passed on IA.No.16 as the scope of the appeal was restricted only with regard to validity of the order passed in Miscellaneous Case No.6/2003 on the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 47 of CPC. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47593 CRP No. 284 of 2023 15. Therefore, rejection of the appeal not only on the question of delay but also on the merits which is being challenged in this revision petition needs no interference having regard to the conduct attributable to the revision petitioner and also on the question of very maintainability of the petition under Section 47 of CPC in the form of Miscellaneous Case No.6/2003. More so, Order on IA.No.16 filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC became final. 16. Accordingly, viewed from any angle this Court does not find any merit in the revision petition. 17. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22