- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087142020 NC: 2026:KHC:48323 WP No. 3628 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. ROOPA W/O. REMESH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A SOMESHWARAPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT. GPA HOLDER K. RAMESH S/O LATE T.S. KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT SOMESHWARAPETE VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL SASTRY M, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SURESHA S/O. BULLEGOWDANA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT D.NO. 437, THALAGAVADI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R. GEORGE LAZARUS, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087142020 NC: 2026:KHC:48323 WP No. 3628 of 2020 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VTH ADDITIONAL IST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I.A.NO.8 AT MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE- A IN EXECUTION NO.280/2014 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner/judgment debtor has filed the present petition calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.8 by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to resist the execution proceedings has been rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. The respondent/decree-holder instituted O.S.No.600/2011 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.02.2009. The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 21.02.2014. Pursuant - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087142020 NC: 2026:KHC:48323 WP No. 3628 of 2020 thereto, the respondent initiated E.P.No.280/2014 seeking enforcement of the decree for specific performance. 4. The petitioner is resisting the execution proceedings on the ground that her husband was unwell and, consequently, she had instituted Misc.No.12/2018 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. The Executing Court, by the impugned order, has rejected I.A.No.8, holding that the mere pendency of a proceeding under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC would not, by itself, constitute a ground to stall or resist execution of a decree which remains operative. 5. The said view of the Executing Court does not call for interference. It is well settled that mere institution or pendency of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC does not operate as a stay of the decree. Unless the decree is stayed by a competent Court in accordance with law, the decree-holder is entitled to proceed with its execution. Consequently, the petitioner/judgment debtor cannot seek to resist the execution proceedings merely on the ground that Misc.No.12/2018 is pending. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010087142020 NC: 2026:KHC:48323 WP No. 3628 of 2020 6. The order sheet of this Court further discloses that the interim order granted on 04.12.2020 was not extended beyond 22.03.2024. The present petition has remained pending for nearly six years. There is also no material placed before this Court to demonstrate that the proceedings initiated under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC have resulted in any order staying the operation or execution of the decree. 7. In the absence of any subsisting order of stay, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7