- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.27924 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. SHARANAPPA S/O. B. CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/AT 4TH CROSS, B BLOCK, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATHA R. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.J. VISHWANATH S/O. LATE M. JANARDHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DOOR NO.396, 2ND CROSS, DIXIT ROAD, K.B.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 2. SMT.M.J.ANURADHA W/O. LATE VENKATESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, DOOR NO.396, 2ND CROSS, DIXIT ROAD, K.B. EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 3. SMT.V.SHANTHAMMA, W/O. VATLAHALLI KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, NEAR RAM AND CO. CIRCLE, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 4. SRI.BASAVARAJ, S/O. VATLAHALLI KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, NEAR RAM AND CO. CIRCLE, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 5. SMT. KOTRAMMA, D/O. VATLAHALLI KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, NEAR RAM AND CO. CIRCLE, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. 6. SRI.V.K. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. VATLAHALLI KOTRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRIVATE SERVICE, NEAR RAM AND CO. CIRCLE, PJ EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE – 577 001. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02-08-2025 ON I.A.NO.3 IN EX.NO.139/2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by JDR No.1 in Ex.No.139/2023 arising out of O.S.No.389 of 2006 is directed against the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 whereby the application I.A.No.3 filed by the petitioner- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 JDR No.1 to implead additional JDRs 6 and 7 to the execution proceedings was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A.No.III The JDR has filed the application U/O 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC praying this court to implead the proposed JD No. 6 and 7 in the present execution petition in the ends of justice and equity. 2. The application is accompanied with an affidavit duly sworn by the JD No.1 that, the proposed judgment debtors are in possession and enjoyment of petition schedule properties. Therefore their presence is very much necessary for adjudicate the dispute between the parties. On these grounds the JD No.1 prays to allow the application. 3. On the other hand the DHR has filed detailed objection by denying the allegations made in the affidavit and contended that the JD NO.1 is doing real estate business and he was having knowledge regarding execution of agreement in favour of father of Decree holder in the year 2002 in respect of execution petition schedule property. Further the J.D No.1 has no right to sell the site which is subject matter of agreement when the suit pending before the court. The J.D No.1 is a party to the earlier proceedings and he never raised the plea which is raising before this court. The present application is filed only to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 harass the Decree holder. On these grounds the Decree holder prays to dismiss the application. 4. Heard arguments and perused the materials available before the court. 5. Upon hearing of the arguments and on perusal of the documents the following points that arise for my consideration. 1) Whether the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/W Section 151 of CPC to implead the proposed JDR No.6 and 7 is maintainable in the present execution proceedings? 2) What order? 6. Upon hearing of the arguments and on perusal of records my findings on the above points are as under:- Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per final order for the following; REASONS 7. POINT No.1: The Decree holder has filed the present execution petition to execute the decree passed in O.S. No 389/2016. The provision under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is applicable in suits, to enable the court to add or strike out parties for effective and complete adjudication of the issue involved. The executing court is bound by the terms to the decree and cannot go beyond it. The alleged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 document executed in favour of proposed Judgment Debtors were never discloses by J.D.No.1 at any stage of the proceedings during the trial in O.S. No. 386/2006 nor appeal or in second appeal. The decree in question has attained finality. The delay in execution especially after nearly two decades of litigation would cause grave prejudice to the decree holders and would defeat the injustice. The executing court cannot permit reopening or any alter of the scope of execution by adding new parties. The applicant failed to establish legal or substaritive right, title or interest in favour of proposed parties. In the absence of such proof impleading them as Judgment Debtors in the execution petition is unwarranted. The proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to the execution proceedings. Therefore the same is not maintainable. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Negative. 8. Point No.2: In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.5 filed by the J.D No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC seeking implead the proposed Judgment Debtor No. 6 and 7 is hereby dismissed. For steps Call on 11.08.2025” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. As can be seen from the material on record and the impugned order, the Executing Court has come to the correct conclusion that the proposed JDRs 6 and 7 were not parties to the suit or the decree, which is put into execution and so also the undisputed fact that the proposed JDRs 6 and 7 were not parties to RSA No.1141/2016, which was preferred by the petitioner herein and ultimately dismissed by this Court vide final judgment and decree dated 30.06.2023 are neither proper nor necessary parties to the execution proceedings. The Executing Court has also come to the correct conclusion that in execution proceedings it is not permissible to go beyond / behind the judgment and decree passed by this Court, which has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the parties and as such, the petitioner-JDR No.1 is not entitled to seek addition of parties, who were not parties to the original proceedings. 4. Upon reconsideration, re-appreciation and re- evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the view that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9482 WP No. 27924 of 2025 impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting application – I.A.No.III does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477 and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6