- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12535 WP No. 5709 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5709 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI K G GOPAL S/O. LATE K.GUNDU RAO AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/ AT NO.177, 17TH CROSS 30TH 'A' MAIN, 6TH PHASE J.P NAGAR BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N R NAIK., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT M VANITHA MURTHY W/O. M.MURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.342, 5TH CROSS PRAGATHIPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560078. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 PASSED BY THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-42) IN EXECUTION NO.2473/2016 ON I.A FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 35(3) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND SAME IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12535 WP No. 5709 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by XLI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Execution Petition No.2473/2016, whereby, I.A. filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 35(3) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking possession has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1155/2008 for bare injunction. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2014. The relevant portion of the said decree reads as under: “It is ordered and decreed that the defendants 1 and 2, their agent, servants, nominees and any other person claming under them are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed at Ex.P1.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12535 WP No. 5709 of 2026 3. A perusal of the decree makes it clear that the relief granted is one of permanent prohibitory injunction and not a decree for possession or mandatory injunction. Order XXI Rule 35(3) of the CPC, which provides for delivery of immovable property in execution of a decree for possession, is therefore not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, the Executing Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9