- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 49766 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. S. KEMPANANJAPPA S/O LATE SUBBAPPA @ CHINNASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 1a. SUVARNAMMA W/O KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 1b. K. PRAKASH S/O LATE KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 1c. M.K. MANJULA D/O LATE KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 1d. K. SOUBHAGYA D/O LATE KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 1e. M.K. SARASWATHI D/O LATE KEMPANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONERS 1a TO 1E ARE ALL RESIDING AT MUDDAHALLI NANJANGUD TALUK NAVILUR POST MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 118. 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O S. BAAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 2a. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O KEMPANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MUDDAHALLI VILLAGE NARAYANAPURA TALUK MYSURU. 2b. SRI BANTA KUMAR S/O G. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 2c. SRI SUNIL S/O G. CHANNABASAPPA S/O SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE BOTH R/AT 'GURUKRUPA' KANAJA STREET NANJANGUD, MYSORE DISTRICT. 2d. SMT. VIDYARANI W/O SRI PRABHU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT URADAHALLI VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT. 2e. SMT. SUDHA B W/O SRI DINESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 1447, 4TH CROSS THYAGARAJA ROAD K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ANUSHA ASUNDI, ADV., FOR SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADV.,) AND: SRI SUGAN CHAND S/O LATE SHANKARLAL JAIN A/A 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.87 SOUTH 3RD CROSS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE - 570 023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR B. HUGAR, ADV., FOR SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE S227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD, IN EX.68/2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J IS ILLEGAL AND QUASH THE SAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.08.2019 passed in Ex.No.68 of 2016 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjanagud vide Annexure-J. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.462 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 02.01.2014. Ex.No.68 of 2016 is filed by the decree holders in O.S.No.462 of 2009 to execute the decree passed in the said suit. Respondent-tenant has raised an objection before the executing Court stating that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 since the suit schedule property measures less than 14 square meters, the provisions of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 are applicable to the suit schedule property and therefore, the decree passed in O.S.No.462 of 2009 cannot be executed. The trial Court having appreciated the said contention has dismissed the execution petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the decree holders in O.S.No.462 of 2009 are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree and therefore the order passed by the executing Court rejecting the execution petition is bad in law. In support of her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PERIYAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS V. RAJAMANI AND ANOTHER - 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 507. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned and submits that since the suit schedule property measures less than 14 square meter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 the executing Court was justified in passing the order impugned. 6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, petitioners herein had earlier initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Rent Control Act against the respondent herein for eviction of the respondent in respect of a house property. Material on record would go to show that under a composite lease, the house property, which was subject matter of HRC No.2 of 1992 and the suit schedule property in O.S.No.462 of 2009 which is a shop was leased in favour of the respondent by the petitioners. O.S.No.462 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners against the respondent seeking possession of the suit schedule property, which is a shop premise and a decree was granted by the trial Court in O.S.No.462 of 2009 directing the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. The said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.462 of 2009 has attained finality. It is trite that the executing Court cannot go beyond a decree. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PERIYAMMAL (supra) in paragraph Nos.61 to 63 has observed as follows: "61. It further appears that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, claiming to be cultivating tenants, had contended before the courts below that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters pertaining to possession of the suit property and eviction therefrom. The respondents submitted that the decree passed in the original suit was a nullity and therefore, the validity of the decree could be challenged even during the execution proceedings. 62. A harmonious reading of Section 47 with Order XXI Rule 101 implies that questions relating to right, title or interest in a decretal property must be related to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The import of such a reading of the provisions is that only matters arising subsequent to the passing of the decree can be determined by an executing court under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 101. Such reasoning is reinforced by the decisions of this Court in C.F. Angadi v. Y.S. Hirannayya, (1972) 1 SCC 191 and Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670, wherein it has been held that while determining a question under Section 47, an executing court cannot go behind the decree and question the correctness of the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 63. What flows from the position of law, as afore stated, is that the issues that ought to have been raised by the parties during the adjudication of the original suit cannot be determined by the executing court as such adjudication may undermine the decree itself. This Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418 has held that the benefit of Section 47 cannot be availed to conduct a retrial causing failure of realisation of fruits of the decree. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:" “24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible. 25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to. 26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that invariably in all execution applications, the courts first issue show-cause notice asking the judgment-debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under Order 21 Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial. For example, the judgment-debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 and Order 21 Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no option with the court but to record oral evidence which may be frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely. 27. This is antithesis to the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be decided in one and the same trial. Order 1 and Order 2 which relate to parties to suits and frame of suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at one go.” 8. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court was not justified in passing the order impugned, dismissing the execution petition in Ex.No.68 of 2016. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45742 WP No. 49766 of 2019 9. Accordingly, following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 passed in Ex.No.68 of 2016 by the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Nanjanagud is set aside and consequently, Ex.No.68 of 2016 is restored to file. (iii) The trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the Ex.No.68 of 2016 on merits as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Pending applications do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32