- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 154 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. S. MANISH S/O SANARAMJI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT VISHNU NIVAS DR. KUVEMPU ROAD, RAMASWAMYPALYA KAMMANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 033. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESWAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. YOONJ IN HOHN CHUNG PRESIDENT AND CHIARMAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ST. PAUL PRIMARY AND MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL NO. 54/1, KAACHARAKANAHALLI P.O. BOX NO. 8454 ST. THOMAS TOWN BENGALURU - 560 084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIREN PERES, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED IN E.P..NO.25199/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGLAORE, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION.M THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Jagadeeswar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Viren Peres, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. Decree-holder is challenging the order passed in Execution petition No.25199/2010 dated 23.09.2022 in dismissing the execution petition in this revision petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under. 4.1. Decree-holder is the plaintiff who obtained an order of injunction in O.S.No.16662/2001. 4.2. For the alleged violation of the decree of permanent injunction, an execution petition came to be filed in E.P.No.25199/2010. The contention raised by the decree-holder was opposed by the judgment-debtor and evidence was recorded. 4.3. After considering the material evidence on record, learned Judge in the Executing Court recorded a categorical finding that there is no interference or encroachment after the decree came to be passed and dismissed the execution. 4.4. The relevant portion of the finding recorded by the Executing Court is in paragraph No.27 which reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 “27. Secondly, it is crucial to note that, the affidavit evidence of the DHR is totally silent as to when the compound wall and gate was put up to the western side of the suit schedule property after the passing of the judgment. It is very difficult to believe that, if really, there was violation of the judgment subsequent to the passing of the judgment, the DHR would keep quite without even filing a police complaint on the same day. Anyhow, when the DHR does not whisper the date on which the alleged encroachment took place subsequent to the passing of the judgment and on the other hand, in the suit, the categorical admission was made that, there is already an encroachment of suit schedule property, but, specifically the court refused the relief of mandatory injunction, it follows that, the DHR has failed to prove alleged encroachment by the JDR subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree put into execution herein. Any encroachment earlier to the passing of the said judgment and decree is inconsequential because in the judgment the court has specifically refused the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by the plaintiff although in the plaint the plaintiff alleged encroachment by defendant. Consequently, it follows that, when DHR has failed to prove encroachment by putting up of the gate & compound wall subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 execution, there is no question of this Court executing the decree and further there is no question of appointment of court commissioner to measure the location of the suit schedule property and to recommend for demolition of the construction, as prayed for in IA No.7. Consequently, the main petition as well as IA No.7 deserves rejection. Accordingly, answering point No.1 and 2 for consideration in the negative, I proceed to pass the following: :: ORDER :: The execution petition is dismissed. IA No. 7 which was directed to be considered a along with the main petition as per orders dated 03/08/2013 is also dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, decree-holder is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds: The trial court illegally proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner for direction and also execute the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16662/2001 without considering the cause shown by the petitioner in I.A.No.7. The trial court proceeded to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 dismiss the said application without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case and the same has caused great injustice to the petitioner and if the same is not set aside, it leads to mis-carriage of justice and petitioner has to prove that the respondent has no right over the suit property. Unless an opportunity is given to the petitioner, the petitioner will not in a position to prove the same and hence the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside. The Trial illegally proceeded to dismiss the execution petition, the trial court once granted Judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner in the suit, the execution court have no power to dismiss the Execution petitioner filed by the petition, except to implement the decree, the execution court have power to implement earlier judgment and decree, without doing so the trial court blindly dismiss the execution petition on irrelevant grounds, the impugned is illegal and not in accordance with law. The impugned order is otherwise illegal and liable to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 The petitioner has not initiated any proceedings in respect of the same subject matter either before this court or any court or forum. No other proceedings are pending before this court in respect of the same subject matter. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the learned Judge in the Executing Court did not consider the case of the decree- holder in proper perspective and dismissed the execution petition on surmises and conjectures resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision of petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the evidence of the decree-holder has - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 been taken note of by the learned Trial Judge in the executing Court meticulously. 10. The learned Trial Judge has opined that the affidavit of the decree-holder is silent as to what is the date on which the alleged encroachment has taken place. 11. Learned Trial Judge has also noted that there is a categorical finding in the suit that during the pendency of the suit itself, there was an encroachment. 12. Therefore, decree of permanent injunction is not violated is the finding recorded by the decree-holder. If the decree-holder is affected by the alleged construction of the compound wall etc., the remedy for the decree- holder lies elsewhere. 13. With that liberty for the decree-holder, this Court does not find any good grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 14. Accordingly, following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52316 CRP No. 154 of 2024 ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23