- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 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. 13050 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAVYA D/O M.S. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO. 64, 2ND FLOOR MARISWAMY BUILDING 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN RAJAJINAGAR, RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADV.) AND: 1. THIMMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT THALAVADI VILLAGE KOOTAGALLI HOBLI RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159. 2. SMT. MUTHAMARI W/O LATE S ANANTHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.64, 2ND FLOOR MARISWAMY BUILDING 2ND CROSS, 1ST MAIN RAJ KUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUMUKH GOWDA M.J, ADV., FOR SRI M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADV., FOR R-1; Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 V/O DTD 17.06.2025 WP AGAINST R-2 STANDS REJECTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER, DTD 21.03.2020 PASSED ON IA-4, FILED U/SEC.151 OF CPC, IN EX.CASE 22/2010, BY THE ADDL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.03.2020 passed on IA.no.4 in Execution Case No.22/2020 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara, vide Annexure-A. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.173/2001 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court, Bengaluru Rural District, by the respondent herein against one S.Anantha Murthy seeking the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 31.01.2007. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.173/2001 has attained finality and the Regular Appeal filed by the judgment-debtor - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 has been dismissed. The decree-holder in O.S.No.173/2001 who is the respondent herein, has filed Execution Petition No.22/2010 before the Trial Court to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.173/2001. During the pendency of the said proceedings, original judgment-debtor - S.Anantha Murthy has died and his wife and daughter were brought on record as judgment-debtor nos.1(a) & 1(b) in Execution Petition No.22/2010. IA.no.4 was filed on behalf of judgment-debtor no.1(a) under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to permit her to file statement of objections to the petition. The Executing Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA.no.4, and aggrieved by the same, judgment-debtor no.1(a) is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits, that the Trial Court has virtually denied an opportunity to the petitioner to put forward her defence and the principles of natural justice is violated. He submits that a decree in respect of the suit schedule property has been passed in O.S.No.318/2009 which was filed seeking partition and separate possession. Therefore, the decree passed in O.S.No.173/2001 cannot be executed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order. He submits that the decree passed in O.S.No.318/2009 is a collusive decree. The original judgment-debtor has not raised any objection in the execution proceedings. The Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and no inquiry can be held. Therefore, the Executing Court was justified in rejecting the application. He submits that the execution proceedings has been pending for the last 15 years and the decree-holder has been denied the fruits of the decree which was passed in his favour in the year 2007. He, accordingly prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.173/2001 has attained finality. Execution Petition No.22/2010 has been filed before the Trial Court by the decree- holder in O.S.No.173/2001 and during the pendency of the said proceedings, the original judgment-debtor has died. His legal representatives were brought on record as judgment-debtor nos.1(a) & 1(b), and IA.no.4 was filed by judgment-debtor no.1(a) seeking permission of the court to file statement of objections opposing the execution petition. The Trial Court has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 rejected the same on the ground that the judgment-debtor during his lifetime had not filed any objection and the legal representatives have filed the objection belatedly in the execution proceedings. In my considered view, the said approach of the Executing Court cannot be justified. The legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor needs to be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter, otherwise it would virtually amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 7. It is trite that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, but that does not mean that the judgment-debtor need not be heard in the execution proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 8. Writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.03.2020 passed on IA.no.4 in Execution Case No.22/2010 by the Court of Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Ramanagara, is set aside. Consequently, the prayer made in IA.no.4 is granted and the objections filed by the judgment-debtor no.1(a) in the execution petition shall be taken on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46239 WP No. 13050 of 2020 9. Since the execution petition is of the year 2010, the Executing Court is requested to hear both the parties and dispose of the execution proceedings on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK