- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.211 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. D ISHWARA BHAT S/O LATE D KRISHNA BHAT AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SUPREETHA I BHAT D/O D ISHWARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SUCHETHA I BHAT D/O D ISHWARA BHAT AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT “CHITHAARA”, KADRI ROCKS ROAD, KADRI, MANGALURU - 575 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWAJITH RAI M, ADVOCATE) AND: VADIRAJA ACHARI S/O LATE KANTHAPPA ACHARI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O D NO.6-33, KAINTHILA VITTAL KASABA BANTWAL TALUK -574 243 (DK) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SAMEER S N, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2021 PASSED IN EXE.CASE No.9/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 32(1) AND (5) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. 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 Vishwajith Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sameer S.N., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Decree Holder in Execution Case No.9/2016 is the revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application filed by him under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The decree holder alleged that there is a willful disobedience on the part of the judgment debtor and therefore action was sought. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the decree holder has noted that there was no willful disobedience on the part of the judgment debtor. 5. No doubt, judgment debtor did not enter the witness box to substantiate that there was no disobedience. But, since it is the decree holder who is required to establish before the Court that there was willful disobedience of the decree, question of taking advantage of non-examination of the judgment debtor would not arise. 6. Learned Trial Judge after taking note of the relevant material evidence on record dismissed the application filed under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding at paragraphs 14 to 16 as under: “14. But in the present petition the decree holder has produced Ex.P3, Ex.P16, P20, P21 Photographs, First Information dated 19.06.2016 and the oral allegations, the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove that, the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of this court by removing the gate put to petition schedule property. Further, on perusal of Ex.P-18 first information report dated 25.08.2016 discloses that, the allegation of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 petitioner No.1 is the respondent has constructed temporary shed in the petition schedule property and thereby disobeyed the decree of this court. But neither in the petition nor in the evidence the said fact has been mentioned. If at all the respondent have constructed shed in the petition schedule property it would have been mentioned in the petition. Hence, it can be inferred that, the said allegations are baseless. 15. Further, as per Order XXI Rule 32(1) of CPC where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. Thus, it is clear that, to enforce the decree of injunction, there must be willful disobedience. For the purpose of Rule 32(1) the Decree Holder has to satisfy the court that there is willful disobedience of the decree by Judgment Debtor. Such disobedience must be deliberate and willful and such disobedience must be a conscious attempt of Judgment Debtor to ignore the decree. In a decision of Caper Travel Company Pvt LTD., Vs Rohith Srivasthav reported 2019 SCC Online Del 10040 wherein Supreme Court has observed that, mere violation of decree for injunction had not been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 made executable and a decree for injunction was made executable only on proof, also of the fact that, judgment debtor had an opportunity of obeying the decree and the disobedience is willful. Both the said ingredients required and element of mens rea to be established before the court before detention in civil prison or attachment of property would be ordered. 16. But in the present case as per Ex.P-10 the Judgment Debtor has already vacated the house situated in the petition schedule property through Court process in Ex. No.7/2016. The documents produced by the decree holder are not sufficient to prove the fact of willful disobedience of Judgment debtors. No doubt the judgment debtor has not entered the witness box to put forth their defense. However, the decree holders have to prove their case on their stand. Moreover, in the execution of decree of injunction, the only punishment which the court can impose is put the judgment debtors in civil prison. Under such circumstances the decree holder has to satisfy the court with co-gent and convincing evidences that the judgment debtors have willfully disobeyed the orders of this court. Further, in one of the photograph of -the erected gate, the name of the petitioner no.1 is mentioned. But in some of the photographs of the erected gate and the gates which have falling down, the name of the petitioner No.1 is not forthcoming. Under such circumstances without the other corroborating evidences, this court cannot opined that, both the erected gates and which have been fallen down are one and the same. Thus, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 only on the basis of photographs and F.I.R it cannot be inferred that, the respondents have removed the gate put to petition schedule property. Accordingly, I hold Point No.1 in the Negative.” 7. Correctness of the said Order is assailed in the present revision petition. 8. Sri Vishwajith Rai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, contented that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is contrary to the material on record. Therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Sameer, supports the impugned order. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that there is no material on record to show that there was willful disobedience of the decree. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44467 CRP No. 211 of 2021 12. When there is no disobedience established by the decree holder, dismissal of the application filed under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is just and proper. 13. Accordingly, the same needs no interference in this revision petition. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52