- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7906/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. SHANKAR S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.331/11, 23RD CROSS 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041. 2. DR. B.R. DAYANANDA S/O T. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER (WEST) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATISH K, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. M. VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. NO.30, BESIDES ASHWATHAKATTE GANESHA TEMPLE CHIKKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560061. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021 2. DR. B. BASAVARAJU MAJOR PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNINGHAM ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE-560052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL K.N. ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 20.02.2020 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3268/2014 BY THE HON’BLE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-9) (ANNX-H) AND RESULTANTLY, DISMISS EXECUTION PETITION NO.3268/2014 FILED BY THE R-1 HEREIN (ANNX-G) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Call for records from the trial Court; b) Set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Execution Petition No.3268/2014 by the Hon’ble XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-9) (Annexure -H) and resultantly, dismiss execution petition No.3268/2014 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (Annexure-G) and in the interest of justice and equity; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021 c) Pass any other order including the costs of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard Sri.Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for Sri.Suni K.N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioners are the retired Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District and former Revenue Officer, who later became Tahsildar. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 obtained by respondent No.1/decree holder in OS.No.6338/2004 were passed against the respondents, the State of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Forest Department; the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District; the Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore South Sub-Division; the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk; the Chief - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021 Conservator of Forests and the BBMP. However, respondent No.1/decree holder filed the execution proceedings against Dr.B.Basavaraju and others including the petitioners herein by naming them. It is to be noticed that when the property was attached, the judgment debtors filed an application seeking prayer to remove the attachment which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 29.02.2012 and thereafter, the Executing Court under the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 issued show cause notice to the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they are arrayed as respondents in the execution proceedings by their individual names and they are no more holding the office. Hence, the execution proceedings are not maintainable. In my considered view, the said contention is required to be raised before the Executing Court and the Executing Court is required to consider the same on merits before proceeding further. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021 5. At this stage, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1/decree holder submits that the State has preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.6338/2004 before this Court in RFA.No.1366/2015 and the said appeal is pending consideration. It is further submitted that until the appeal is disposed of, the decree holder would not precipitate the execution proceedings. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition, by granting liberty to the petitioners to raise the contentions with regard to the maintainability of the execution proceedings against them before the Executing Court, if the execution proceedings are revived after the disposal of the RFA. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25