- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31767 WP No. 13716 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13716 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI B.K.SREENATH S/O B.L.KALACHAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT ‘ANANYA’ KESHAVAPURA MAIN ROAD KUVEMPU NAGARA BADRAVATHI - 577 301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHOWRI H. R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NITHIN KUMAR S/O B.K.SREENATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O BOVI COLONY II CROSS, RIGHT SIDE BADRAVATHI - 577 301. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BHADRAVATHI IN EX. NO.59/2024 ALLOWING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3 FILED Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31767 WP No. 13716 of 2025 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner calls in question an order dated 21.03.2025, by which, an application filed by the respondent comes to be allowed. 2. Heard Shri Showri H.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: A suit in O.S.No.1/1998 is instituted seeking declaration of title by the respondent - plaintiff. The suit comes to be decreed on 24.02.2009 in favour of the respondent. The petitioner - defendant files an appeal challenging the said decree in RA.No.46/2009. By an order dated 24.03.2016, the regular appeal is dismissed by the First Appellate Court. A regular second appeal comes to be filed in RSA.No.1130/2016 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31767 WP No. 13716 of 2025 before this court. The co-ordinate bench of this court dismisses the RSA on 13.12.2023. Thus ends the saga of litigation for close to 26years. Execution petition is filed by the respondent seeking to execute the decree in Ex.No.59/2024. In the said execution, an application is filed seeking police protection for executing the decree. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the application so filed seeking police protection. The concerned court allows the application and directs protection to be granted for the purpose of execution of the decree. 4. The petitioner - the judgment debtor is now before the court calling in question an order granting police protection to execute the decree in a suit, which was instituted 26years ago. The concerned court as on the application so filed by the decree holder, on recording the following reasons, allowed the application: "7. Point No.1: The decree holder has filed thi execution petition praying to direct the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, Hosamane Shivaji Circle Police Station, Bhadravathi to render protection to the decree holder for his peaceful cultivation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and other allied reliefs. The DHR also filed interim application along with execution petition seeking same relief. The DHR filed the suit in O.S.No.01/1998 and said suit was decreed on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31767 WP No. 13716 of 2025 24/02/2009, wherein the court declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and also restrained the defendant from peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property of decree holder. 8. The Hon'ble 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga sitting at Bhadravathi also confirmed judgment and decree passed by this court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by both the courts. The JDR also preferred an Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Apex court in 15695/2024. The said writ petition also dismissed. So, the judgment and decree passed by this Court in O.S.No.01/1998 reached its finality. Even then also the JDR in his objections he has taken contention that the DHR is unnecessarily and intentionally causing interference in the suit schedule property and disturbing the possession of JDR. Further he has contended that Sri.B.L.Kalachar has no locus standi to execute the registered Will in favour of DHR. Further he has contended that one Sri.Amogha Vigneshwara has also filed suit for partition in O.S.No.289/2024 and the present DHR and JDR are also parties in the said suit. 9. On perusal of objections filed by the DHR it clearly shows that they are not obeying orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The objections filed by the JDR itself shows that they are causing interference to the peaceful enjoyment of the DHR. So, under such circumstances in order to enforce judgment and decree, directing police to give protection to the DHR is verymuch necessary to enjoy his property. If this court not ordered for police protection the DHR cannot enjoy the fruits of the judgment and decree passed by this court. On meticulous perusal of the entire case the DHR has made out sufficient grounds to allow the application. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative. 10. Point No.2:- In view of discussion on point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.3 filed by the decree holder under Section 151 of CPC is hereby allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31767 WP No. 13716 of 2025 The jurisdictional Inspector of Police, Hosamane Shivaji Circle Police Station, Bhadravathi is hereby directed to provide necessary protection to decree holder for his peaceful cultivation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. No order on cost." As observed hereinabove, the judgment debtor - petitioner has lost his case, which spanned for more than two decades. It is now the decree holder wanted to enjoy the fruits of the decree, which was again disturbed by the judgment debtor. Therefore, the concerned court has allowed the application. 5. A perusal at the order quoted supra would not indicate any perversity for this court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77