- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50935 WP No. 4717 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 4717 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: B.N.SHIVEGOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT BOMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 418. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.BHARGAVA D.BHAT FOR SRI.AJIT.P.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE DYAVACHARI, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 154/1, 8TH CROSS, LAKE ROAD, PRAGATHI LAYOUT, DODDANEKUNDI BANGALORE - 560 037. 2. LINGARAJU S/O LATE DYAVACHARI AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 154/1, 8TH CROSS, LAKE ROAD, PRAGATHI LAYOUT, DODDANEKUNDI, Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50935 WP No. 4717 of 2021 BANGALORE - 560 037. 3. KANTHESHA S/O LATE DYAVACHARI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT NO. 154/1, 8TH CROSS, LAKE ROAD, PRAGATHI LAYOUT, DODDANEKUNDI, BANGALORE - 560 037. 4. MANI D/O LATE DYAVACHARI, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BABU BUILDING, 7TH C CROSS, KALAPPA LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR, HAL 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. L.K.MANJUNATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.05.02.2021 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.5/2008 DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION AS BEING MAINTAINABLE (AS PER ANNEXURE-A)SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO REINSTATE EXECUTION PETITIONER NO.5/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (AS PER ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50935 WP No. 4717 of 2021 ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 05.02.2021 in Ex.No.5/2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala[hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application filed by the petitioner seeking to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased Judgment- Debtor has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Decree Holder submits that since the Judgment-Debtor has passed away, he will be filing fresh proceedings against the legal representatives of the deceased Judgment-Debtor and he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file such proceedings. 2.1. Learned counsel seeks to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhakara Adiga Vs. Gowri and others1 to submit that a decree can be executed against a Judgment-Debtor or his legal representatives. However, 1 (2017) 4 SCC 97 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50935 WP No. 4717 of 2021 he contends that the petition is filed only in respect of Judgment-Debtor who has now passed away. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakara Adiga case has held that Section 50 of CPC and Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC set out that a decree can be executed against a Judgment Debtor or his legal representatives as follows: “10. Section 50 CPC deals with execution of decrees of all kinds including that of permanent injunction. Section 146 CPC provides that where any application which can be made by or against any person, it may be made by or against any person claiming under him except as otherwise provided in the Code. Order 21 Rule 16 deals with execution of decree by a transferee with which we are not concerned in this case. Order 21 Rule 32 provides the mode for execution of decree for injunction, restitution of conjugal rights and specific performance. Section 50 CPC which is a specific provision with respect to execution of decree against legal representatives, would be attracted read with Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. 11. It is crystal clear from a perusal of Section 50(2) CPC that a decree for permanent injunction can be executed against the judgment-debtor or his legal representatives. In Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Ganesan [Muthukaruppa Pillai v. Ganesan, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 69], a question arose with respect to executability of the decree for injunction in the backdrop of facts that the plaintiff had filed a suit for restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering with her rights as Hakdar and Pujari. The suit was decreed and it was held that the said rights were heritable and partible. On aforesaid foundation, decree was passed. The successor-in-interest of the plaintiff decree-holder had put the decree for execution. It was contended that the decree for injunction was personal in nature and could have been enforced by the decree-holder only. This Court held that there was nothing in the decree for permanent injunction to hold that it lapsed with the death of the plaintiff and it could be executed by heirs of decree-holder.” [Emphasis Supplied] - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50935 WP No. 4717 of 2021 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is however granted to the petitioner-Decree Holder to file an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law against the respondents/judgment debtors. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: High Court of Karnataka