- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 101 OF 2020 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI. ANJANAYA SWAMY DEITY HOUSED AT SRI. ANJANAYA SWAMY DEITY TEMPLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS VAHIVATDAR, SRI. K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O KESHAV, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS B.M. ROAD, MANDYA CIRCLE NAGAMANGALA TOWN - 577 101, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MULLAIAH S/O MULLURA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT KALIKOPPALU VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 577 101. 2. YELAVAIAH S/O MULLA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT KALIKOPPALU VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 577 101. 3. JAVARA S/O POOJARI MULLA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT BHEEMANAHALLI VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 577 101. 4. ERAMMA @ NINGAMMA W/O BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT BINDENAHALLI VILLAGE DEVALAPURA HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 PASSED IN EX.PETITION NO.03/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN U/O XXI R11 OF CPC.DECREE HOLDER AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 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.Gururaj R., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Respondents are served and unrepresented. 2. Decree-holder is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed in Execution Petition No.3/2012 dated 19.12.2019 on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nagamangala. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. Decree-holder filed a suit in O.S.No.77/2010 for permanent injunction which came to be decreed on contest. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 3.2. It is the contention of the decree-holder that there was a willful violation of the decree by the judgment-debtors and therefore, filed an execution petition to punish the judgment-debtors. 4. Learned trial judge held an enquiry in the execution petition and after considering the material on record, in paragraph No.12 of the impugned order has held as under and dismissed the execution petition: “12. It is well settled law that, the decree holder ha s to satisfy that, the JDRs are willfully failed to obey the decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying it. 'Willful' means – Deliberate or intentional and not accidental or by inadvertence. There should be a clear proof that, the order of the disobedience of the JDRs. Therefore, the initial onus to place the relevant material for an action against the JDRs will always on the DHR. The DHR has not adduced sufficient materials in order to show that, the JDRs have interfered in the possession of the suit schedule property by interfering therein. Unless satisfied the court about violation of decree passed by this court and interference of the JDRs in the decree holders - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 possession with regard to suit schedule property, the court cannot pass the order to detain the JDRs in the civil petition. ILR 1986 KAR 2127 Shivamurthy v. Doddammadevi Cycle Marts, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that, “Scope and ambit – court cannot make order for detention without satisfying itself and recording a finding on the basis of materials produced that the person had opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey-onus lies on person seeking order of detention.” 5. Validity of the same is called in question in this present revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record and wrongly dismissed the execution petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 7. In the light of the arguments put forward on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is found that in the affidavit filed by the decree-holder in lieu of his evidence itself, there is no averment as to when the judgment-debtors violated the decree. So also the details as to the alleged violation namely the date, time etc., is not forthcoming. 9. Therefore, in the light of want of material evidence of violation of injunction decree, the impugned order is passed and does not require any further consideration by this Court that too in the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. 10. Hence, following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54258 CRP No. 101 of 2020 ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20