- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 21011 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU. 5. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI. B. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O LATE A.G. BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2. SRI. B. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE A.G. BOARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SRI. B NARAYANA S/O LATE A.G. BOARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DEAD BY HIS LR 3. SMT. SUNANDA W/O B NARAYAN 4. B. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE A.G. BOARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, G.E.F.POST, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DTD 16.08.2022 PASSED IN EX.NO.1/2018 ON IA-II AND IA-III VIDE ANNEXURE-D - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND 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 both orders dated 16.08.2022 passed on I.A.No.II and I.A.No.III in EP.No.1/2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural district (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have filed a suit for declaration that the respondents/plaintiffs have acquired the right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties and also sought a direction to effect RTC in their favour, which came to be decreed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the defendants in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 the suit have preferred a regular appeal in RA.No.129/2021, which is pending. It is submitted that the decree holder has initiated execution proceedings, and in the said proceedings, the decree holders filed an application seeking prayer to issue arrest warrant against judgment debtor No.4 and the said I.A is numbered as I.A.No.II. The petitioners have also filed an application I.A.No.III seeking stay of the execution proceedings during the pendency of RA.No.129/2021. The application filed by the decree holders in I.A.No.II is kept in abeyance, and judgment debtor Nos.4 and 5 are directed to furnish the salary particulars of judgment debtor No.5 before the Court on the next date of hearing. The application in I.A.No.III filed by the petitioners was rejected. It is further submitted that the judgment and decree which is put to execution is an ex parte judgment and decree, which is assailed in the appeal by the State, and until the appeal is heard and decided on merits, it would not be appropriate for the executing Court to proceed further. Hence, she - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 seeks to allow the petition by staying further proceedings in EP.No.1/2018. 3. Per contra, Sri. R.S Umesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 supports the impugned orders of the executing Court and submits that the petitioners have filed regular appeal with enormous delay. The decree is of the year 2010 and the appeal is filed in the year 2021. The appeal is pending before the appellate Court and no further progress has been made in the said appeal. It is further submitted that petitioner No.5/Tahsildar has filed a memo of undertaking before the executing Court that he would implement the judgment and decree within two months. Despite such undertaking, no steps have been taken to effect the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records, which compelled the decree holder to file an application seeking arrest. However, the Trial Court kept the said application in abeyance and directed the petitioners to produce salary particulars to enable the executing Court to attach the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 salary. It is submitted that the executing Court has assigned detailed reasons while rejecting I.A.No.III and the same does not call for any interference in the present writ petition. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The respondents herein have filed O.S.No.2243/2007 seeking relief that the plaintiffs have acquired all the right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession and further relief that defendant Nos.4 and 5 be directed to effect the khata and RTC in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010, decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the suit schedule properties and further directed defendant Nos.4 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 and 5 to effect the khata and RTC in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. It is not in dispute that the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court is ex parte. The decree holders filed EP.No.1/2018 seeking to execute the judgment and decree in OS.No.2243/2007. In the said proceedings, judgment debtor No.5/Tahsildar has filed a memo on his behalf as well as on behalf of the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4, that the judgment debtors would implement the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2010 in OS.No.2243/2007 in two months. It is to be noticed that the decree holders have filed I.A.No.II seeking prayer to issue arrest warrant against judgment debtor No.4 for non-compliance of the order passed by the Trial Court. The judgment debtors have filed I.A.No.III under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking prayer to stay in the execution proceedings on the ground that the judgment and decree in question is assailed by the judgment debtors in RA.No.129/2021, which is pending - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 before the VI Additional District and Session Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru. The application filed by the decree holders in I.A.No.II for issuance of arrest warrant was kept in abeyance by the Trial Court, and directed judgment debtor Nos.4 and 5 to furnish the salary particulars of judgment debtor No.5 before the Court on the next date of hearing without fail. The application filed by the judgment debtors under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC came to be rejected. It is to be noticed that the Trial Court has rightly kept the application filed by the decree holders in I.A.No.II in abeyance and has recorded a clear finding that it would first proceed to attach the salary of the judgment debtor No.5 and thereafter, it can consider I.A.No.II. Hence, I.A.No.II seeking arrest of the judgment debtor No.4 was kept in abeyance. 7. In my considered view, the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 in keeping I.A.No.II in abeyance and directing the Judgment debtor Nos.4 and 5 to furnish the salary - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 particulars of Judgment debtor No.5. It is also required to be noticed here that the judgment and decree in OS.No.2243/2007 is dated 30.07.2010 and the said judgment and decree is challenged by the judgment debtors in RA.No.129/2021 after a period of more than a decade. The said appeal is pending, and there is no interim order. 8. In my considered view, in the absence of any interim order in RA.No.129/2021, there is no justification for the judgment debtors to seek stay of the execution proceedings. This Court has also taken note of the fact that Judgment debtor No.5, on behalf of the other judgment debtors, has given an undertaking before the executing Court that they would implement the judgment and decree in OS.No.2243/2007. 9. Keeping the aforesaid facts in mind, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned orders. I do not find any error or - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29369 WP No. 21011 of 2022 perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order. 10. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. 11. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4