- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49694 CRP No. 332 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.332 OF 2024 (EX) BETWEEN: MR SHAGEER SHEREEF AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/o Mr.HASSAN SHEREEF THUNDIPARAMBIL SRM ROAD, PACAHALAM PACAHALAM S O, ERNAKULAM KERALA STATE PIN-682 012 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANTOSH B M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MISS SUSHMA SWARAJ R S AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O SOMANATH CHOWDARY NO.84, 12TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560070 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1-2, RAVIPTI VARI STREET NEAR SUBRAMANESWARA TEMPLE K GANGAVARAM MANDALAM DANGERU, EAST GODAVARI ANDHRA PRADESH-533 263 2. M/s BLUE VALLEY PROPERTIES PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR K SURYANARAYANA RAJU NO.41, BLUE VALLEY CELESTRIAL Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49694 CRP No. 332 of 2024 NANDIDURGA ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION BENGALURU-560 046 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M J ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2024, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH ) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2023 PASSED IN Ex.No.27/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, CLOSING THE PETITION AS FULLY SATISFIED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri Santosh B.M, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.J.Alva, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor in Execution Case No.27/2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, being aggrieved by the closure of the execution petition on account of the execution of the sale deed through the process known to law in a suit wherein decree came to be passed for specific enforcement of agreement of sale. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49694 CRP No. 332 of 2024 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: Respondent No.1/decree holder filed a suit for specific enforcement of the agreement to sell in O.S No.458/2014 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. 4. Suit came to be decreed on contest by judgment dated 07.06.2022. An appeal came to be filed by the defendants, which is now pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions, Anekal. 5. During pendency of the appeal, taking note of the fact that there was no stay order granted by the First Appellate Court, execution case came to be filed before the Trial Court. 6. Judgment debtor appeared in the execution proceedings and filed vakalath. 7. Thereafter, Copy of the draft sale is furnished and by process known to the law, the sale deed came to be executed by appointing an Officer of the Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49694 CRP No. 332 of 2024 8. After production of the sale deed, execution case came to be closed. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, judgment debtor is before this Court contending that the Executing Court committed a grave error in not complying the provision of law as is contemplated under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the draft must be served on the judgment debtor and thereafter necessary proceedings should have taken place. 10. Admittedly in the case on hand, it is the allegation of the judgment debtor that case was preponed to an earlier date and later on the execution of the document has taken place resulting in miscarriage of justice. 11. Judgment debtor appeared before the Court and objected for execution proceedings as could be seen from the material on record, on the ground that the appeal is pending. 12. Admittedly there was no stay granted by the Appellate Court in the pending appeal filed by the judgment debtor. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49694 CRP No. 332 of 2024 Impugned judgment shows that the defendant did not lead any evidence to oppose the suit. 13. Anyway, it is for the Appellate Court to find out the validity of the judgment passed in O.S No.458/2014 in the pending appeal, in accordance with law. 14. Suffice to say that if the judgment debtor succeeds in the said appeal, automatically the sale deed executed even with the process of Court, would get nullified by operation of law. 15. With that observation, closure of the execution proceedings cannot be faulted with. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER Civil Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61