- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.20776/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH RAMA REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.418, 2ND MAIN ROAD 5TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY VENKATAPURA, BENGALURU-560034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV.,) AND: 1. SMT. SUJATHA W/O PHILOMENA RAJ AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.10, UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560061. 2. KENDRA UPADHYAYARA SANGHA (REGISTERED) SUBBA RAMA CHETTY ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560004 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/DTD:29.10.2022, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 17.09.2022 MADE ON I.A.NO.2 FILED U/S 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN EXECUTION CASE NO.2952/2011 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU THE ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION & 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 writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ of like nature, quashing the order dated 17.09.2022 made on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No.2952/2011 passed by the honourable court of the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city, Bengaluru the Annexure-N to the writ petition and allow the said application. b) Issue a writ of certiorari or writ of like nature, quashing the order dated 24.03.2017 made on I.A. No.1 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Execution Case No.2952/2011 passed by the honourable court of the XI - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City [CCH-8], the Annexure-M-2 to the writ petition and allow the said application.” 2. Though served, there is no representation for the respondents. 3. Heard Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') in Ex.Case No.2952/2011 seeking to allow the claim of the objector and dismiss the execution petition. The said application was heard and the Trial Court, vide order dated 24.03.2017, rejected the said application without assigning any reasons. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.2 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking prayer to restrain the decree holder from proceeding with the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 execution of the sale deed by the respondent No.2 herein - Sangha, in favour of Smt.Sujatha, decree holder as the petition itself is not maintainable in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.523/2013 dated 02.03.2017 and the said application was rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 17.09.2022 solely on the ground that the very same objector had filed a similar application earlier, which was rejected. 5. It is required to be noticed that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is pertaining to site No.418 carved out of Sy.Nos.45 and 46 of Venkatapura, Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2-Sangha had formed a layout and it has executed a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 11.12.1986 in favour of Smt.G.S.Bharathi and the possession certificate was issued on 18.12.1986. Thereafter, Smt.Bharathi died on 21.11.1987 and her - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 husband Sri.M.C.Srinivasan got the sale deed executed in his favour from the respondent No.2-Sangha on 12.11.2010. It was further averred that the said Sri.M.C.Srinivasan had executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Sri.Dhana Prakash on 12.11.2010 and the said Sri.Dhana Prakash had inturn executed a registered sale deed dated 25.02.2011 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner has got the revenue records mutated in his name, obtained the sanctioned plan from the competent authority and has put up the construction in the purchased site. 6. The case of the respondent No.1-Smt.Sujatha is that the very same respondent No.2-Sangha had executed an agreement of sale dated 21.10.1985 in her favour and thereafter, she filed a suit in O.S.No.8646/2006 against the respondent No.2 herein for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale and the said suit came to be decreed on 06.02.2008. It is to be noticed - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 that the respondent No.1-Smt.Sujatha had filed a suit in O.S.No.8893/2011 against the petitioner herein for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed a detailed written statement making factual assertions referred supra. It is to be noticed that the suit in O.S.No.8893/2011 filed by the respondent No.1 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.01.2013. The records indicate that the petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.523/2013 against Smt.Sujatha and Kendra Upadhyaya Sangha i.e. the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein seeking for a declaration that the judgment in O.S.No.8646/2006 does not bind the petitioner herein and the said suit came to be decreed on 02.03.2017 by declaring that the judgment in O.S.No.8646/2006 does not bind the petitioner herein. 7. The records further indicate that the respondent No.1 had filed an execution petition in Ex.P.No.2952/2011 seeking to execute the judgment and decree in - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 O.S.No.8646/2006 against the respondent No.2 herein and in the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.1 under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC and I.A.No.2 under Section 151 of the CPC, referred supra and the Executing Court, considering the contentions, rejected both the applications. It is required to be noticed that the Executing Court, vide order dated 24.03.2017, has rejected the application solely on the ground that the application is vague, baseless and is filed without assigning any reasons. In the second order of the Executing Court dated 17.09.2022, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected without assigning any valid reasons. In my considered view, the Executing Court has committed a grave error in rejecting both the applications. The case of the petitioner is specific that the petitioner is the purchaser of the property from one Sri.Dhana Prakash who is the purchaser of the property in question from Sri.M.C.Srinivasan, the husband of the original allottee. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 No.1 is seeking to execute the judgment and decree in O.S.No.8646/2006 and the petitioner had filed O.S.No.523/2013 which was decreed by the Trial Court on 02.03.2017 wherein a declaration was granted in favour of the petitioner that the judgment in O.S.No.8646/2006 does not bind the petitioner herein. In view of the aforesaid contentions, I am of the considered view that the Executing Court is required to re-consider the objections raised by the objector in the form of two applications referred supra by providing an opportunity to hear the parties to the proceeding. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 24.03.2017 passed on I.A.No.1 and dated 17.09.2022 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.Case No.2952/2011 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-8), are set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010477632022 NC: 2026:KHC:39080 W.P. No.20776/2022 (iii) The applications in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of the CPC and I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the CPC, by the petitioner are restored on the file of the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41