- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.3227/2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. F4 GRANITES AND MARBLES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO.24/1, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS BOMMANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 068 REP. BY ITS OWNER/PROPRIETOR MR. FARAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SHAKEEL PASHA. 2. M/S. F4 STONES (A DIVISION OF F4) A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932, NO.109, SY NO.138/1 BUKKASAGARA JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA, JIGANI POST, BENGALURU -560 105 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. FARAZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SHAKEEL PASHA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK B.N. ADV., FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, ADV.,) AND: SRI. MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE POTTA REDDY R/AT JIGANI VILLAGE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 105. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C, ADV., FOR SRI. B.V. MALLA REDDY, ADV.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT ON I.A.NOS. 5 AND 6 VIDE ANNEXUR-J TO THE PRESENT WP AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.5 AND 6 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EX.CASE NO.1/2021 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.12.2022 passed in Ex.P.No.1/2021 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short, ‘the Executing Court’). 2. Sri.Vivek B.N., learned counsel for Sri.Abhinav R., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the judgment debtors in the execution proceedings and in the garb of the execution of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 decree, the decree holder has damaged the property to the tune of Rs.1,87,79,862/-. Hence, an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) was filed and the Executing Court, without any adjudication, summarily rejected the application. It is submitted that the Trial Court is duty bound to adjudicate the claim of the judgment debtors by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJSHEKHAR AND OTHERS1 and contended that unless the Executing Court adjudicates the claim of the judgment debtors, such an order cannot be termed as a decree and therefore, there cannot be any appeal. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and remand the matter back to the Executing Court to adjudicate the claim. 1 RSA No.7522/2010 dt. 01.10.12 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 3. Per contra, Sri.Chandrashekar C., learned counsel for Sri.B.V.Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the Executing Court and submits that the Executing Court, after considering the claim and the rival claim, has proceeded to reject the application. The remedy is to prefer an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. To support his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. HAVALDAR TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. Vs. SRI.U.KAMALAKSHA PRABHU2. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.1176/2015 against the petitioners herein seeking the relief of eviction. The said suit came to be decreed 2 W.P.No.142/2015 dt. 10.09.18 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 vide judgment dated 01.04.2019 which has attained finality. The decree holder has initiated execution proceedings in Ex.P.No.1/2021. In the said proceedings, the judgment debtors filed an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, to direct the decree holder to pay the compensation of Rs.1,87,79,862/- for the injuries sustained by the judgment debtors during the course of execution of the decree. To substantiate the said application, an affidavit is filed indicating the manner of taking possession and the loss caused to them. The decree holder has opposed the said application. The Executing Court, under the impugned order has rejected the application on certain grounds. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Executing Court is required to adjudicate the claim of the judgment debtors as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC but the Executing Court, without any adjudication, has summarily - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 rejected the application which cannot be termed as a decree and therefore, the petitioners cannot be compelled to file an appeal. The decision of this Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA referred supra has considered the decision of this Court in the case of B.K.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS Vs. G.P.RAO AND ANOTHER3 and held that the Appellate Court can entertain the appeal. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. HAVALDAR TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. referred supra, referring to the other decisions, has held that the order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the CPC, is appealable under Section 96 of the CPC as provided under Order XXI Rule 58(4) of the CPC. 7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by this Court in M/s. HAVALDAR TRADING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. referred supra, I am of the considered view that whether the Executing Court has adjudicated the claim of the petitioner or not, it can also 3 (1999) 2 KLJ 384 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 be raised in the appeal and such a plea cannot be gone into in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the parties have made certain assertions on oath which are denied by the other side. Therefore, when a specific provision is provided under the CPC to treat the order passed under Order XXI Rule 58(4) of the CPC, as a deemed decree, in my considered view, the appropriate remedy would be to prefer an appeal. It is needless to observe that the petitioners would be entitled to claim the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1973. It is also to be noticed that this Court vide order dated 14.02.2023 has stayed the further proceedings in the execution case. In my considered view, the interim order granted by this Court dated 14.02.2023 shall enure to the benefit of the petitioners for a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30808 W.P. No.3227/2023 file an appeal. Consequently, the pending application stands disposed of. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted back to the Executing Court. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7