- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MR CHETHAN KUMAR SHETTY S/O BHOJA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. SMT. THANVI CHETHAN SHETTY @ THANVI CHOWTA, W/O CHETHAN KUMAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NEAR MAHAVEER COLLEGE, PRANTHYA VILLAGE, KODANGALLU POST, MOODABIDRI TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 197 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARAT CO-OPERATIVE BANK (MUMBAI) LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE MOHAN TERRACE, FIRST FLOOR, 64/72, MODY STREET FORT, MUMBAI – 400 001 CENTRAL OFFICE AT “MARUTAGIRI”, PLOT NO.13/A, SONAWALA ROAD, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI – 400 063 AND AMONGST OTHERS MOODBIDRI (MANGALORE) BRANCH, SITUATED AT VEENU SKY PLAZA, MOODBIDRI, KARKALA ROAD, MOODBIDRI, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 227 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED BANCH HEAD Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 2. MRS. VANITHA SRINIVAS KANCHAN W/O MR. SRINIVAS KANCHAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.3-113, VANITHA FARM HOUSE TENKAYEDAPADAVU, SIBRIKERE MANGALURU TALUK. D.K. DIST. – 574 164 ALSO R/AT (i) FLAT NO.203, ECHELON APARTMENT, MANNAGUDDA CROSS ROAD, BALLALBHAGH, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DIST. – 574 003 (ii) FLAT NO.402, 4TH FLOOR, HARI BHAKTHUI APARTMENT, PINTO LANE,BEJAI, MANGALURU D.K. DIST. – 574 164 3. MRS. ANITHA KIRAN KANCHAN S/O MR.SRINIVAS KANCHAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 3-113, VANITHA FARM HOUSE TENKAYEDAPADAVU, SIBRIKERE, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DIST – 574 164 ALSO R/AT FLAT NO.203, ECHELON APARTMENT MANNAGUDDA CROSS ROAD, BALLALBHAGH MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DIST. – 574 003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. R. SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2025 PASSED IN EX. CASE NO. 132/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALURU VIDE ANNX- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the obstructors in Ex.No.132/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Executing court which rejected the obstruction petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners – obstructors and learned counsel for the 1st respondent – Decree holder and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 1st respondent – Decree holder instituted the instant execution proceedings in Ex.No.132/2025 seeking enforcement and implementation of the arbitral award dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal In favour of the 1st respondent - Decree holder against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Judgment debtors. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, the petitioners - obstructors filed the instant obstruction petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC inter alia contending that the property sought to be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 attached by the Executing Court was owned and possessed by the petitioners who are third party obstructors having purchased the said property from the Judgment debtors prior to initiation of arbitration proceedings. The said obstruction petition having been opposed by the Decree holder, the Executing court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the obstruction petition/application, aggrieved by which, the petitioners - obstructors are before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from various illegalities and infirmities contained in the impugned order, the Executing court committed an error in not providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and did not conduct necessary enquiry as mandated in law while considering an application / petition filed by the obstructors under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. It is submitted that the if impugned order passed by the Executing Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, the petitioners-obstructors would produce oral and documentary evidence in support of their claim and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent - Decree holder would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 7. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the Executing court has failed to consider and appreciate the well settled position of law that when an application is filed by a third party - obstructor seeking to oppose the execution proceedings as well as an order of attachment passed in respect of a property claimed by him, ordinarily, the Executing court would necessarily have to conduct an appropriate enquiry and thereafter dispose of such obstruction petition in accordance with law, having regard to the fact that any order passed after enquiry would be a deemed decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC. In the instant case, the Executing court has undisputedly not conducted any enquiry on the obstruction petition / application filed by the petitioners and has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 summarily rejected the petition on the ground that the transaction between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was a collusive transaction, which is incomplete and unregistered without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. 8. Under these circumstances, though several contentions have been urged by both sides in respect of their rival claims, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions and in order to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their claim on merits and also to enable the Executing court to conduct an enquiry by permitting both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Executing court for reconsideration of the obstruction petition filed by the petitioners – obstructors afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1667 WP No. 190 of 2026 (ii) The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Executing court in Ex.No.132/2025 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration of the obstruction petition filed by the petitioners – obstructors under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC afresh and in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners – obstructors to adduce oral and documentary evidence before the Executing court, which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (v) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.