- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 49 OF 2019 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI. C.H. SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE C H HOSALI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, #20, (OLD NO.113-D) EDWARD BUILDING, BRIGADE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUNATH M.D., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. THE POPULAR MOTOR & CYCLE CO A REGD PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI MUSHTAQ S PASHA & SRI MUNI S PASHA #102, II FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, 10TH A MAIN, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 038 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.S. BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER ON MEMO DATED 07.01.2019 PASSED IN EX.NO.25167/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXII ADDL.CITY Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, [CCH-73], BENGALURU ACCEPTING MEMO DATED 20.11.2018 FILED BY THE DECREE - HOLDER IN THE CONSEQUENCES, THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PUT THE PLAINTFF/DECREE-HOLDER IN POSSESSION OF CARPET AREA OF 500-SQ.FT. ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING FACING TOWARDS BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. 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 M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.S.Mahadeshwaran, learned counsel for the respondent. The judgment debtor in Execution Case No.25167/2013 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 07.01.2019. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "Memo filed by the Decree-Holder dt. 20.11.2018 is hereby accepted. In the consequences, the Judgment-Debtor is hereby directed to put the Plaintiff/Decree-Holder in possession of carpet area of 500-Sq. Ft. on the second floor of the newly constructed building facing towards - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 Brigade Road, Bengaluru, within two months from the date of this Order. Further, both the parties to comply the terms of Memorandum of Agreement entered into by them in O.S.No.16511/2006 dt.22.01.2008. No order as to costs." 2. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition, are as under: A suit in O.S.No.16511/2006 came to be filed wherein a decree of ejectment came to be passed and as per the decree, the reconstructed building on the second floor, of equal dimension, that was in the position of the decree holder was agreed to be given. When the plaintiff failed to offer the equal portion of the property on the second floor in the newly constructed building, the defendant filed an execution case to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.16511/2006. 3. In pending execution case, the defendant sought for grant of the space on the ground floor. All that the Executing Court was required to do was to adhere to the decree and should have allowed the execution directing to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 allot property on the second floor. But there were some objections to the execution petition and ultimately a carpet area of 500 square feet in the second floor of the newly constructed building belonging to the judgment debtor was sought to be given to the decree holder by seeking amendment to the prayer. The said prayer was allowed and the validity of the same is being questioned in this revision petition. 4. Sri M.D. Raghunath, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, contended that as per the decree, the decree holder, who was the defendant in O.S.No.16511/2006, was entitled to get 500 square feet of carpet area in the second floor of the newly constructed building and when the prayer is for the ground floor, perse execution petition was not maintainable. 5. He would also contend that the judgment debtor, who is the revision petitioner who was the original plaintiff, made his intention clear to allot 500 square feet in second - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 floor and intimated the same in writing before the Execution Court, but it is the defendant decree holder who did not agree and, as an afterthought, sought for amendment of the prayer in the execution petition, which has been allowed by the Executing Court and a memo came to be filed and a memo being allowed as per the impugned order as referred to supra resulted in miscarriage of justice. 6. All that the Executing Court is required to do is to direct the judgment debtor to allot 500 square feet of carpet area in the newly constructed building irrespective of the prayer made in the execution petition. 7. Seeking an amendment or allowing the decree holder to seek the ground floor are all unnecessary in view of the decree being clear and explicit that 500 square feet of carpet area is to be given back to the decree holder in the reconstructed building. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49967 CRP No. 49 of 2019 8. Therefore, challenge to the impugned order is of no avail for the judgment debtor, who was the original plaintiff, in avoiding the decree, especially when the decree has become final. 9. Accordingly, there are no good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER The revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT-SG