- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 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.758 OF 2025 (EX) BETWEEN: SMT JYOTHI SHERIGAR W/O RAVISHANKAR SHERIGAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT LALITH MAHAL, PERADKA, MALA POST, KARKALA TALUK AND UDUPI DISTRICT-574 113. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA SALMARA, KARKALA BRANCH, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT -574 104 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER / PRINCIPAL OFFICER. …RESPONDENT (VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 SMT.SADHANA S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED IN EX.CASE.24/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DECREE PASSED IS EXECUTABLE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Jayakara Shetty H, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Sadhana Desai for the respondent. 2. Judgment Debtor in Execution Case No.24/2025 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order of the Executing Court dated 24.09.2025 overruling the objections as to the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground that decree is non-executable. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. A suit for recovery of money was filed by the respondent/ bank against the petitioner herein in O.S No.42/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, Udupi, which came to be decreed by the judgment dated 01.07.2022. 5. There was no appeal filed by the defendant and thereby decree became final. 6. In order to execute the decree passed in the said suit, execution case came to be filed by the respondent/bank which - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 is numbered as Execution Case No.24/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala. 7. In the execution case, judgment debtor appeared and filed objections stating that decree is unenforceable as the decree is passed by the Civil Court whereas the decree should have been passed by the Commercial Court. 8. Said objection was overruled by the Learned Judge in the Executing Court by impugned order. Thereafter, Judgment Debtor is before this court in this revision petition. 9. Sri Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the Court at Karkala did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is a commercial transaction and it is only the Commercial Courts which were entitled to pass the necessary decree. Therefore, decree is a nullity. 10. Admittedly, the objection was not under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was filed as non-executable by filing an application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 11. The learned Trial Judge after taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter including the decision cited at the Bar on behalf of the judgment debtor, has held as under: “This is an execution petition filed seeking recovery of Rs.15,05,495/- along with future interest. The notice was issued to the judgment debtor who appeared through the counsel and objects that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit and the decree could not be executable. The counsel for the judgment debtor files written arguments by stating that as per the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, an amount more than Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned, it is only the Commercial courts which has the jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute. That the alleged loan which was obtained in the above suit was for purchase of two buses, which was a commercial transaction. Further submits that the loan which is the subject matter of the above suit has covered under CGTMSC scheme of the government and the government is the security for the said loan and hence the decree holder is not entitled to recover the same. Further has relied upon several authorities reported in 1) 1985 ILR page 2967 in 'Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Jayaram Reddy' 2) AIR 1989 (1) KLJ 83 (DB) in 'Shivamurthy Mallya Swamy Vs. Mahadev Umarane' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 3) AIR 2007 (SC) 1077 in 'Hasham Abbas Sayyad Vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others', 4) AIR 1977 (SC) 1201 in 'Sunder Dass Vs. Ram Parkash', 5) AIR 1954 (SC) 340 in 'Kiran Singh and others Vs. Chaman Paswan and others', 6) AIR 2006 (Bom) 147 in 'Chellaram Jethanand Madhrani and another Vs. Maruthi Raghunath Kadam and Others'. The sum and substance of the above authorities goes to show that when the decree sought to be executed is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction, its invalidity can be set up in an execution proceeding. The above authorities are aptly applicable to the instant case. However in the above authorities it is also held that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree nor can it question its legality or the correctness. It is is pertinent to note that the defendant did not contest in the original suit. Even in one of the authorities relied upon by the counsel for the judgment debtor, it is held that even if the defendant did not raise the objection the decree passed in such a suit have to be treated as a nullity. But this court is permitted to entertain all the suits above Rs.5,00,000/- except where the transaction is commercial in nature. This is a suit filed by the bank to recover the loan amount of Rs. 11,10,835/- along with interest from the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 defendant, where it is alleged that the loan was lent for purchase of two buses, which the defendant alleges to be a commercial transaction. Apart from the above objections, it was the bounden duty of the defendant to have raised the said objection at the very initial time after receiving of the summons in the original suit. Even it is very well settled law that the question of jurisdiction has to be raised at the preliminary stage. However, the defendant was absent and did not contest the case. Thus relying upon the said ground and on the fact that this court being the executing court cannot go beyond the decree, and the suit is one for recovery of the loan amount lent by the plaintiff/decree holder to the defendant/judgment debtor, the above point is answered in the negative.” 12. Smt.Sadhana S.Desai, learned counsel for the respondent bank supports the impugned order. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly decree has become final as the defendant has not filed any appeal against the decree. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47853 CRP No. 758 of 2025 15. Therefore, raising objections before the Executing Court about the validity of the decree is rightly rejected by the Executing Court. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) However, Judgment Debtor may file a representation with the Decree Holder-Bank seeking One Time Settlement. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61