- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 482 OF 2021 (EX) BETWEEN: 1. MS M D SOUMYA W/O LATE DHANU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. CHI KRIPAL KARUMABAIAH S/O LATE DHANUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER M D SOWMYA 3. MS M.C. VISHALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. MS M.C. VEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. MS M.C. PARVATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 6. MS M.C. REVATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7. MS M.C. ASHWINI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 8. MS M.C. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 9. MS M.C. JAJI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE CHENGAPPA AND ALL ARE R/AT KADANGAMAROOR VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPETNAD SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.P. GANGAMMA W/O K.K. POONACHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NEW HOPE CHIKPET VIRAJPET TOWN SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEVAIAH I.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2021 PASSED IN EX No.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. Vijaykumar for Sri. S.R. Sreeprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. I.S. Devaiah, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision petition is filed by the decree holder who sought execution of the decree in O.S. No.183/1977. 3. To execute the decree when the execution petition came to be filed, Decree Holder filed an application under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer of directing the judgment debtor to remove the obstruction. 4. Said application was opposed and learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraphs No.9 to 11 as under; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 9. The Decree holder has produced the certified copy of the Judgment of O.S.No. 183/1977. On perusal of the said Judgment it shows that, the Decree holders have filed the above said Original suit for seeking declaration of right of way, mandatory and perpetual injunction and eviction against the defendant. The Addl. Civil Judge had pronounced the Judgment on 5.3.1983, wherein the learned Civil Judge was observed that, there is 5 feet path way in the Sy.No. 253/1. The plaintiffs have right to use the said path way as right of way and defendant was directed to remove the obstruction existing to the said 5 feet pathway. Under the above said Original suit the Decree holder has not only got permanent injunction against the defendants and there is a finding that the defendant has made obstruction to the said 5 feet pathway. Hence, the defendant is entitled to remove the said obstruction to the above said 5 feet pathway. As per the gist of the Judgment the defendant has failed to remove the said obstruction the plaintiffs/Decree holders has right to remove the said obstruction in accordance with law for vacating said obstruction the plaintiff/Decree holder have filed this execution petition after laps of 26 years. The defendant/Judgment debtor has taken contention that, this execution petition is barred by limitation. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. Article 136 of Limitation Act is reads as under: 136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or other of any Civil Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 10. There is only 12 years period of limitation for filing Execution petition when the Decree holder has obtained mandatory injunction against the Judgment debtor. The Decree holders have obtained permanent injunction and mandatory injunction under the above said Judgment. The Decree holder has not filed this execution petition within prescribed period of 12 years for execution of decree. The counsel for Judgment debtor/defendant vehemently argued that, according to the Judgment in O.S.No. 183/1977 the plaintiff have got mandatory injunction the same shall be executed within a period of 3 years from the date of assing of Judgment. The Article 135 of Limitation Act reads as under: 135. For the enforcement of a decree granting a mandatory injunction. 11. There is a limitation for filing execution petition for executing decree of any court within 3 years from the passing of the Judgment. The plaintiff/Decree holder has not filed this execution petition within 3 years and more over the Judgment debtor has not a party to the above said Judgment. The plaintiff/Decree holder If the has filed this execution petition after laps of 26 years. defendants/Judgment debtor failed to remove the obstruction to the said 5 feet path way the plaintiff may have opportunity to file The execution petition within prescribed period of 3 years. plaintiffs/Decree holder has filed this execution petition after laps of 26 years. Hence, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 execution petition filed by the Decree holders is not maintainable. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Under such circumstances, the question of considering I.A.No.VII under order 76 Rule of CPC and I.A.No. VIII U/O 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the Decree holders does not arise. Hence, this court is answered Point No.1 in the "NEGATIVE". 5. Validity of the said order is challenging in this revision petition. 6. Sri. Vijay Kumar would contend that the Executing Court has gone behind the decree while rejecting the application filed by the decree holder resulting in miscarriage of justice. 7. In order to ascertain whether the judgment debtor would be interested in allowing the road, this Court called the judgment debtor who appeared before the Court. As per the request made by both the sides, the parties were directed to visit the spot and find a way out for effective implementation of the decree. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 8. Parties visited the spot and alternate road is shown to the decree holder by the judgment debtor is the submission made on behalf of the judgment debtor Sri. I.S. Devaiah. 9. He would also submit that 30 cents of land are to be given to the Judgment debtor by the decree holder and if the decree holder is willing, apart from 5 feet, as per the decree, judgment debtor would be interested in giving the 10 feet in the width instead of 5 feet in the width on suitable consideration and necessary conveyance would be made. 10. Sri Vijay Kumar would submit that Decree Holder has not agreed for the 10 feet width road and all. What is sought by the decree holder is the implementation of the decree and if the space is 5 feet width is shown even in an alternate place, the decree holder would explore the possibility of amicable settlement. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46832 CRP No. 482 of 2021 11. Under such circumstances, by setting aside the impugned Order if the matter is remitted to the Executing Court for the parties to work out the amicable settlement including showing the alternate road for the decree holder in terms of the decree would meet the ends of justice taking note of the fact that execution case is of the year 2009. 12. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Civil Revision petition allowed. (ii) Impugned Order is hereby set-aside. Matter is remitted to the Executing Court wherein parties can explore the amicable settlement including showing the alternate road for the decree holder by the judgment debtor in terms of the decree. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT-SG