- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19436 W.P. No.9799/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.9799/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: B. BHARATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O BAHADURMAL JAIN BHARATH ENTERPRISES DODDAPET, TIPTUR- 572 201 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S.P. ADV., FOR SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADV.,) AND: SADASHIVA RAO AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE BABU RAO 585, BH ROAD, TIPTUR- 572 201 TUMKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINOD REDDY V, ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 12.08.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE AND JMFC, TIPTUR IN EX.63/2018 ANNEXURE-G & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19436 W.P. No.9799/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2020 passed in Ex.No.63/2018 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. Heard Smt.Shruthi S.P., learned counsel for Sri.Vinaya Keerthy M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Vinod Reddy V., learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The trial Court under the impugned order considered the memo dated 29.06.2020 filed by the respondent/decree holder and closed the execution proceedings in Ex.No.63/2018. It is to be noticed that the respondent/decree holder, in the said memo, specifically stated that the petitioner/judgment debtor had handed over the keys of the petition schedule shop to the respondent/decree holder on 24.06.2020, and therefore, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19436 W.P. No.9799/2021 sought closure of the execution proceedings. The contention of the petitioner is that he had paid an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, out of which the respondent/decree holder was entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.1,71,560/- towards arrears, and was consequently liable to refund approximately Rs.28,000/- to the petitioner/judgment debtor; however, the trial Court, without passing any order in this regard proceeded to close the execution proceedings. The trial Court under the impugned order has recorded that the respondent/decree holder had already filed another separate execution proceedings in Ex.No.14/2017 for recovery of damages and arrears. Taking note of the fact that Ex.No.63/2018 was filed solely for obtaining vacant possession of the petition schedule premises, and that such possession had already been delivered, the trial Court proceeded to close the said execution proceedings. In such circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19436 W.P. No.9799/2021 interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16