- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.4520/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. NEW FOOTWEAR PALACE OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002 BY PROPRIETOR FAREEDA S/O SIRAJ AHMED AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.451 NEAR HASBHAVI CIRCLE CHOWKIPET, DAVANAGERE-577 001. 2. GOOD LUCK FOOTWEAR OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002 BY PROPRIETOR-MEHABOOB BAIG S/O NAZEER BAIG AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NITUVALI NEAR DURGAMBIKA TEMPLE DAVANAGERE -577003. 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA BAGS AND FOOTWEAR OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002 BY PROPRIETOR DINESH NAYAKA S/O UMBALA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.661, 7TH CROSS Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE S M KRISHNA NAGAR DAVANAGERE -577 001. 4. SRI. KALA SHOE AND FANCY STORES OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577 002 BY PROPRIETOR KASHINATHA S/O HARISH CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.55 NEAR EWS QUARTERS JALINAGAR DAVANAGERE-577002. 5. KALABAG CENTRE OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002 BY PROPRIETOR KALANDARA S/O NOOR AHMED AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT IMAMNAGAR 1ST MAIN IST CROSS DAVANAGERE-577001. 6. SRI. GURU KOTTURESHWARA HOTEL NEAR HARIHARA BUS STOP P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577002 PROPRIETOR S. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O S P S NAGARA, DOOR NO.1407 KONDAJJI ROAD DAVANAGERE -577 589. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KANTHARAJ H, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. RAVI H.K. ADV.,) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 AND: 1. SRI. PARASHURAMAPPA @ PARASHURAMA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA HOVALE AGED 67 YEARS BUSINESS HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE -577002. 2. SMT. RATHNA BHAI W/O NAGENDRAPPA BONDADE MAJOR R/AT MURAKALA COMPOUND BEHIND JAYASHREE TALKIES HARIHARA, DAVANGERE-577002. 3. SRI. B.N. TUKARAMAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA BONDADE MAJOR R/AT MURAKALA COMPOUND BEHIND JAYASHREE TALKIES HARIHARA, DAVANGERE -577002. 4. SMT. LAKSHMI BHAI D/O NAGENDRAPPA BONDADE MAJOR R/AT MURAKALA COMPOUND BEHIND JAYASHREE TALKIES HARIHARA, DAVANGERE -577002. 5. SMT. ANJANADEVI D/O NAGENDRAPPA BONDADE MAJOR R/AT MURAKALA COMPOUND BEHIND JAYASHREE TALKIES HARIHARA, DAVANGERE -577002. 6. SRI. B. NAGARAJA S/O NAGENDRAPPA BONDADE MAJOR - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 ATTENDER R/AT JAYADEVA CIRCLE DAVANAERE-577 002. 7. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA W/O M.G. VEERUPAKSHAPPA MAJOR R/AT M J V HALLO BRICKS KAVADINAGARA HATTI BEHIND WATER TANK HOLALAKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501. 8. SRI. SWAMY W/O M.G. VEERUPAKSHAPPA MAJOR R/AT M J V HALLO BRICKS KAVADINAGARA HATTI BEHIND WATER TANK HOLALAKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA -577501. 9. C. IBBANI D/O M.G. VEERUPAKSHAPPA MAJOR R/AT M J V HALLO BRICKS KAVADINAGARA HATTI BEHIND WATER TANK HOLALAKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA -577501. 10. SHREE SHIVAMURTHY SHARANARU CHINMULADRI MAJOR BRUHANMATTA (MURUGHARAJENDARA MUTT) CHITRADURGA -577502. 11. BHARATH BAG CENTRE PROPRIETOR EJAZ MAJOR - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 OLD COURT ROAD DAVANGERE -577002. 12. CLASSIC FOOTWARE PROPRIETOR - BASHEER MAJOR OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE-577002. 13. NEW CLASSIC FOOTWARE PROPRIETOR YOUNUS MAJOR, OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002. 14. H K G N BEEDA CENTRE PROPRIETOR MUNAVARA MAJOR NEAR P B ROAD OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577 002. 15. H K G N FRUITS PROPRIETOR FAROQUE MAJOR NEAR P B ROAD OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002. 16. ADI-SHAKTHI HOTEL AND BAKERY PROPRIETOR VEERUPAKSHA, MAJOR HARIHARA BUS STOP DAVANGERE -577002. 17. R A FRUITS AND R A BEEDA STALL PROPRIETOR JAMRUDHU MAJOR NEAR P B ROAD OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577002. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 18. SRI. VEERABHADRESHWARA BEED STALL PROPRIETOR KARIBASAIAH MAJOR BUSINESS OPPOSITE TO VIJAYA BANK P B ROAD, DAVANGERE -577 002. 19. KANAKA BAKERY AND COOL DRINKS AND TEA/COFFEE BAR PROPRIETOR, MAJOR SOMASHEKARA MAJOR BUSINESS HARIHARA BUS STOP P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577002. 20. MAHAVEER SUGAR CANE JUICE PROPRIETOR PAPANNA MAJOR HARIHARA BUS STOP P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002. 21. K N FOOTWEAR PROPRIETOR KALANDARA MAJOR BUSINESS, OLD COURT ROAD DAVANGERE-577002. 22. IRFANA FOOTWEAR PROPRIETOR - ABDUL AKBAR MAJOR BUSINESS OLD COURT ROAD DAVANAGERE -577 002. 23. N K FOOTWEAR PROPRIETOR HAMEED AHMED MAJOR BUSINESS OPPOSITE TO RAILWAY STATION P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-57702. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 24. SRI. VINAYAKA HOTEL TEA STALL PROPRIETOR POORA RAMA MAJOR, BUSINESS OPPOSITE TO RAILWAY STATION P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE -577002. 25. LINGESHWARA SUGAR -CANE JUICE CENTRE PROPRIETOR LINGESHA MAJOR BUSINESS P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002 29. 26. VINAYAKA BEEDA STALLA PROPRIETOR T N VEDAMURTHY MAJOR BUSINESS NEAR HARIHARA BUS STOP P B ROAD, DAVANGERE -577002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 R2, R11 TO R14, R17, R18, R20 TO R26 ARE SERVED R3 TO R7, R9, R10, R15, R16 & R19 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V/C/O DTD:20.10.2022, NOTICE TO R8 H/S) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.14.2.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE 1 ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DAVANAGERE REJECTING THE IA NO.16 FILED UNDER SECTION 27 AND 28(1) AND (3) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT (47 OF 1963) VIDE ANNEXURE-H BY THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI & ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.08.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.02.2022 passed on I.A.No.16 in Ex.P.No.128/2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere (for short, ‘the Executing Court’). 2. Sri.H.Kantharaj, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Ravi H.K., learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Parashuramappa S/o Hanumanthappa Huvale filed a suit in O.S.No.100/1998 against Nagendrappa Thukaramappa Bondade for the relief of specific performance of the contract. The said suit came to be decreed by directing to refund earnest money with interest. The decree holder preferred an appeal in RFA No.82/2004 which came to be allowed by decreeing the suit for specific performance and in both the proceedings, the petitioners were not parties. However, in the execution petition filed by the decree holder to execute - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 the decree, the petitioners were arrayed as judgment debtors which is impermissible. It is submitted that the petitioners filed an application seeking prayer to rescind the contract on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the decree and the decree cannot be enforced against them. It is further submitted that the Executing Court rejected the said application without assigning any reasons. It is also submitted that the Executing Court was expected to consider whether the execution proceedings can be maintained and continued against the petitioners as the decree is unenforceable against them. It is contended that the petitioners are the tenants under Beeradevaru Devasathana Jaga Abhivrudhi Trust and they are in possession of the property for several decades and paying rents to the Trust. Therefore, as the decree was obtained without making the Trust as well as the petitioners as parties to the suit and appeal, the same is unenforceable and none of the aspects was considered by - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 the Executing Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Vs. INDORE COMPOSITE PRIVATE LIMITED1 b) KASTURI Vs. IYYAMPERUMAL AND OTHERS2 c) BANK OF BARODA Vs. R.M.PATWA AND ANOTHER3 3. Per contra, Sri.B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-decree holder supports the impugned order and submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of suppression of facts. The petitioners have filed objections in the execution petition which came to be rejected. The same was challenged before this Court in a writ petition which was dismissed by directing the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal and later the petitioners filed a regular first appeal which was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to file the appeal before 1 (2018) 8 SCC 443 2 (2005) 6 SCC 733 3 Civil Appeal No.2476/1996 dtd 12.01.1996 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 the appropriate Court and till this day, no appeal has been filed. It is submitted that the Executing Court has considered all the contentions now urged in this writ petition while rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners in the execution petition. Hence, the Executing Court, considering all the aspects has recorded clear reasons that the petitioners are obstructing the execution of the decree unnecessarily. It is further submitted that the Executing Court has recorded that the sale deed is already executed in favour of the decree holder and only possession is required to be handed over, for which an application for delivery warrant is filed with police protection. It is also submitted that this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot look into other aspects as the scope of this petition is very limited. It is contended that the petitioners cannot seek rescission of the contract as they are not parties to the agreement. It is further contended that the writ petition lacks bona fides and is liable to be rejected as the objections as well - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 as the additional objections filed in this writ petition by the respondent No.1 indicate as to how the petitioners have obstructed the execution of the decree which was obtained in the year 2006. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. It is to be noticed that one Parashuramappa S/o Hanumanthappa Huvale filed a suit in O.S.No.100/1998 against Nagendrappa Thukaramappa Bondade seeking for the relief of specific performance of the contract. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 11.08.2003 by directing the defendant to refund the earnest money with interest. The decree holder preferred an appeal in RFA No.82/2004 which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 03.08.2006 by decreeing the suit as prayed for. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 6. The decree holder initiated execution proceedings in Ex.No.128/2016 against the defendants in the suit as well as the petitioners, who have been arrayed as judgment debtor Nos.10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 31. The records indicate that the petitioners have filed objections to the execution of the decree on certain grounds. The Executing Court rejected the objections vide order dated 08.02.2018 and thereafter, the petitioners challenged the said order in W.P.No.28359/2019. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.07.2019, held that the writ petition was not maintainable and the impugned order was appealable and permitted the petitioners to file an appeal and the interim protection of two weeks was granted regarding the execution of the decree. It is to be noticed that the petitioners filed a regular first appeal in RFA No.339/2022 before this Court challenging the order dated 08.02.2018. This Court disposed of the appeal by permitting the petitioners to file an appeal before the Court having territorial jurisdiction. It is contended by the - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the appeal has been preferred and the same is pending. 7. When things stood thus, the petitioners filed an application under Sections 27, 28(1) and 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking prayer to pass an order of rescission of the contract and to refuse to execute the decree. The said application is supported by an affidavit. The affidavit indicates that the petitioners have been carrying on the business in Beeradevara Devasthana Maidana, P.B.Road, Davanagere, for several decades and they are paying rents to Beeradevara Devasthana Jaga Abhivruddi Trust and in the suit for specific performance as well as the appeal, they were not made as parties. The said application was opposed by the decree holder by contending that the applicants have no legal right to file the application which is filed only with an intention to drag on the proceedings and that they are in illegal occupation and have no right to - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 challenge the decree. It is also contended that the application is filed when the decree holder was about to take possession of the property. Hence, he sought dismissal of the application. The Executing Court, under the impugned order, rejected the application by recording the reasons that the application was filed only as a delay tactics as the sale deed is already executed in favour of the decree holder and only handing over the possession of the property is left and the decree holder had also filed an application for police protection to break open the lock and door of the suit schedule premises. 8. The primary contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is that the Executing Court has not considered the contention of the petitioners that the decree is not binding on them as they were not parties to the suit and the decree is not executable against them. It is to be noticed that the Executing Court considered the objections raised by the petitioners herein in its order - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 dated 08.02.2018 and rejected the objections and the correctness of the said order is under consideration before the Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not parties in the suit or in the regular first appeal, and according to them, the decree is unenforceable against them. However, the said issue is required to be considered by the Appellate Court, in the appeal which is pending before the Appellate Court. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners clearly indicate that the Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree and the decree is enforceable against the judgment debtors i.e. parties to the decree, and not against a third party. 9. Insofar as non-consideration of the contention raised in the application for rescinding of contract by the Executing Court is concerned, there is no dispute that the Executing Court has not considered the contentions of the petitioners as to whether the decree in question can be - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 enforced against the petitioners herein who were not parties to the proceedings and they can be evicted is a matter required to be gone into by the Appellate Court where the petitioners have challenged the order dated 08.02.2018. Now the question is whether the application filed by the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act is maintainable before the Executing Court. If the answer is in the negative, then the question of examining the correctness of the reasoning of the order passed by the Executing Court would not arise. To consider the same, it would be useful to extract Section 28 of the Act, which is as follows: “28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.— (1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.” [Emphasis supplied] 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section makes it clear that the right is conferred on the judgment debtor / vendor / lessor to seek for rescission of contract between the parties on certain grounds referred in the said Section. The aforesaid Section does not confer any right on the third party to the contract to seek for rescission of contract on certain grounds. In the case on hand, the petitioners are neither parties to the agreement of sale nor to the decree in question which is sought to be executed. Hence, they cannot maintain the application for rescission of contract under Section 28 of the Act. Having come to the - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087652022 NC: 2026:KHC:46748 W.P. No.4520/2022 aforesaid conclusion that the application of the petitioners under Section 28 of the Act is not maintainable, this Court need not go into the correctness of the reasons assigned under the impugned order in the present petition. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV/BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1