- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3063 WP No. 106324 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106324 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. LATE HIREBASAVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. 2. HEMANAGOUDA S/O. LATE HIREBASAVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRI. 3. PAMPANAGOUDA S/O. LATE HIREBASAVANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., ALL ARE R/O. NELAJERI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA GUDIHINDAL, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., R/O. KEMPHALLI-583236, TQ. YELBURGA, DIST. GADAG. 2. NELAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA KONDAGERI, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., R/O. NILOGAL-583231, TQ AND DIST GADAG. 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O. LATE YANKAPPA BAGALI, AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YELAMAGERI-583231, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.21 16:31:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3063 WP No. 106324 of 2024 4. TOTAPPA S/O. LATE YANKAPPA BAGALI, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O. YELAMAGERI-583231, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.SHARANABASAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/08/2024 PASSED IN E.P.NO.54/2014 BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL ON I.A.NO.18 AND 19 IS CONCERNED PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY REJECT THE I.A.NO.18 FILED U/O 21 RULE 96 OF CPC, AND I.A.NO.19 FILED U/S 151 OF C.P.C BY THE RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.54/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND F AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 03/08/2024 passed in E.P.No.54/2014 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Koppal on I.A.No.18 and 19 is concerned produced at Annexure-G and consequently reject the I.A.No.18 filed U/O 21 Rule 96 of CPC, and I.A.No.19 filed u/s 151 of C.P.C by the respondent in E.P.No.54/2014 vide Annexure-E and F and etc. b) Such other writ or directions or orders may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3063 WP No. 106324 of 2024 case, including an order for costs be passed in the interest of justice. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering an application filed by the petitioners’ father under Rule 99 of Order XXI of the code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court has passed on an order under application under Rule 95 Order XX and XXI directing delivery of possession by issuance of a possession warrant. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners’ father having objected to the execution of the decree and the petitioners’ thereafter having come on record as his legal heirs, the said application ought to have been considered and unless orders are passed thereon, possession warrant under Rule 95 Order XXI of CPC could not have been issued. 4. I have perused the records, it is seen that the application under Rule 99 of Order XXI of CPC had been filed on 02.08.2018 and thereafter the father of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3063 WP No. 106324 of 2024 the petitioners who had filed the application having expired. The petitioners came on record as legal representatives on 06.03.2023. Neither the father of petitioners’ nor petitioners have sought to address arguments on the said application and the said application has been only adjourned. It is taking that factor into account in the impugned order that the executing court issued the possession warrant, apart from the above, though not mentioned in the said order. 5. As per the submission of Sri B. Sharanabasawa, learned counsel for the Decree Holder, the petitioners have filed a separate suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.8/2020 which is pending consideration. If that be so, it is for the petitioners to establish their right in a separate suit which has already been filed by them and in the event of they being successful, they could always execute that decree against the decree holders. The execution of a decree passed in O.S.No.113 of 2008 cannot be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3063 WP No. 106324 of 2024 therefore kept in abeyance till the said suit is considered. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. No grounds being made out, petition stands dismissed. 6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal has not complied with a Circular No.RJ No.163/2023, dated 24.08.2023 issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, the Additional Registrar Judicial is directed to forward a copy of the said circular to the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal for compliance in future. 7. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33