- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 214 OF 2020 (EX) BETWEEN: SRI M PADMANABAIAH, S/O H. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT No. 145, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RADHIKA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N THIMMEGOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI KRISHNAPPA, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN, GORAGUNTAPALYA, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560 022. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-KRISHNAPPA SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED IN EX.No.3174/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH No.16) DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 32 OF CPC. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 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 Smt. Radhika, learned counsel representing Sri N. Thimmegowda, counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. 2. Decree holder is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed in Execution Case No.3174/2014 rejecting the application filed under Article 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure by order dated 30.11.2019. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under. 3.1. A suit in OS No.1009/1992 came to be filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant - Sri Krishnappa. In the cause title, it was noted that father's name of said Krishnappa is not known to the plaintiff and his address was shown that he was care of Mangappa, who was residing near Venkateshwara Temple, Goraguntepalya, Yaswanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru-22. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 4. Suit on contest came to be decreed. 5. There is a clear finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial Court, wherein it has been specifically stated that the father name of the defendant is Gopalappa, whereas the deposition of Krishnappa shown that his father’s name is Dodda Gopalappa. 6. Learned trial Judge has also noted that nowhere in the plaint it is made clear that Gopalappa referred to by the plaintiff is in respect of the Court proceedings Gopalappa are one and the same person. 7. As could be seen from the address that has been furnished in the execution proceedings, father name of the judgment debtor is not shown even in the execution proceedings and said Krishnappa is shown as aged 67 years. Insofar as his residential address is concerned, it has been stated that he is care of Mangappa who is residing at No.18, 2nd cross, 1st Main, Goraguntepalya, near Venkateshwara Temple, Bengaluru 22. 8. The learned trial Judge has recorded the evidence of the decree holder before passing the impugned order and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 noted that the judgment debtor Krishnappa did not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff or violated the decree and recorded a categorical finding vide paragraphs 13 and 14 and dismissed the application. 9. For ready reference, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order culled out hereunder for ready reference: +“13. And moreover on careful perusal of the said complaint copy of Ex.P4 one can make out that the DHr has filed the alleged complaint against one Krishnappa S/o Gopalappa and whereas the judgment and decree of Ex.P1 & P2 and so also the present execution petition clearly shows that the said Krishnappa S/o Gopalappa is not at all the JDr of the present petition, but one Krishnappa, [father's name not known] is the JDr of the present petition and since in a ruling of 1992(2) SCC 504 it has been clearly held that “Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC is applicable to a party against whom a decree for injunction had been passed” then the present petition against the JDr cannot be brought under the grip of Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC. 14. 14. And above all since the judgment and decree of Ex.P1 & P2 is of 11.7.1995 and since the present petition is filed on 4.12.2014 and since the DHr has not at all produced any cogent documentary evidence to prove the existence of the suit property in his name as on the date of filing of this petition and since the DHr has also failed to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 prove that the JDr had an opportunity of obeying the said decree and had willfully disobeyed the said decree with cogent material evidence and since in a ruling of ILR 1988 Karnataka 3269 it has been clearly held that “For the purpose of Rule 32(1) of Order 21, the DHr has to satisfy the court that there is willful disobedience of the decree by the JDr and such disobedience must be deliberate and willful and such disobedience must be a conscious attempt of JDr to ignore the decree” then I have answered the above points in the negative.” 10. Being aggrieved by the same, the decree holder has filed the present revision petition. 11. Smt. Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in revision petition contented that to establish that there was an interference even after the decree has been obtained, police complaint and acknowledgment has been placed on record. But, learned trial Judge did not appreciate the probative value of those documents and recorded a finding that there was no interference and dismissed the application filed under - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 Order XXI Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure resulting in miscarriage of justice. 12. In the light of the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the decree holder is not aware of the father name of Krishnappa. 14. The Finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that whether the father name of the judgment debtor is Gopalappa or Dodda Gopalappa is not made out by the plaintiff is detrimental to the interest of the decree holder not in support of the decree holder. 15. Further, when defendant has been examined before the Court and in the deposition, Krishnappa's father name has been mentioned as Dodda Gopalappa, there was always a scope for the decree holder to mention that Krishnappa son of Dodda Gopalappa is the person who - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 interfered with the possession of the suit property. No such attempt is made. But even in the execution petition, the judgment debtor father's name is shown as ‘not known’. 16. Further, the judgment debtor is aged 67 years. How he can interfere with the injunction order passed by the trial Court is a matter that needs to be taken note of by the Court with extra care and caution which has been carried out by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order and dismissed the application filed under order XXI Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure. 17. Therefore, this Court having regard to the limited revisional jurisdiction does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere. 18. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53283 CRP No. 214 of 2020 (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR