- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 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. 351 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S KRISHNAMURTHY S/ O. LATE S.R.SUBRAMANYA, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.445, 2ND FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIKANTH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H D CHANDAN S/O. H.B. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, 12TH CROSS, NEHRU ROAD, NEW GUDDADAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 026. 2. SRI. N.SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. M. NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT IGGALUR VILLAGE, NEAR SURYA CITY, CHANDAPURA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 099. 3. SMT. NANDHINI W/O. R.MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1798/1, Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 10TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYNAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 040.. 4. SMT. SAVITHA, W/O. LATE MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.445, 2ND FLOOR, BTM 2ND STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTINO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 PASSED ON IA NO. 5 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 35 R/W ORDER 21 RULE 95 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY THE HONORABLE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-8) IN EXECUTION CASE NO. 2220/2016 IN OS NO. 3410/2014 FOUND AT ANNX-G TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “ (a) Issue a Writ/order/direction in the nature of CERTIORARI or/any other Writ/order to the effect quashing the impugned order dated:26/09/2025 passed on I.A.No.5, filed Under Order 21 Rule 35 R/w Order 21 Rule 95 of Code of Civil Procedure, by the Hon’ble XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8) in Execution case No.220/2016 in O.S.No.3410/2014, found at ANNEXURE-G, to meet the ends of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 (b) Grant any such other order/direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meets the ends of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed on IA No.5 filed under Order XXI Rule 35 read with Order XXI Rule 95 CPC by the Decree Holder in Ex.Case No.2220/2016 by the Executing Court. It is a matter of record and undisputed fact that prior to the impugned order, the petitioner had filed an application – IA No.1 before the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 01.07.2025 as hereunder: “ORDERS ON I.Α. ΝΟ.1 This is an application filed by the Objector under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 30/09/2019, registered in Book No.1, 5797/2019-220, executed pursuant to the decree in O.S.No.3410/2014, in respect of the schedule properties, on the ground of fraud and material irregularity. 2. The decree-holders filed a suit in O.S.No.3410/2014 for specific performance of Sale Agreement dated 16/08/2012, allegedly executed by deceased judgment-debtor No.1 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 judgment-debtors No.2 and 3. The suit was decreed on 28/04/2016, directing the judgment-debtors to execute the sale deed. Due to non-compliance, this execution petition was filed, resulting in the registration of the sale deed on 30/09/20/19 through the Commissioner, appointed by the court. 3. The Objector claims to be the son of late S.R.Subramanya, who died in the year 2006 and Smt Shantha who died on December 2016, asserting 1/4 share in the schedule properties as a legal heir. He alleges fraud in the Sale Agreement and decree, claiming his existence was suppressed and he was not impleaded in the suit. 4. Heard the arguments of Objector and decree-holders. 5. Now, the points that would arise for my consideration are:- 1. Whether the Objector has established sufficient grounds to set aside the sale deed dated 30/09/2019, executed in favour of the decree- holders, on account of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, causing sing substantial injury to the Objector? 2. What order? 6. My findings on the above points are as under- Point No. 1: In the negative Point No.2: As per final order below for the following; REASONS 7. Point No.1: The Objector submits that, he is a legal heir of late S.R. Subramanya and Smt. Shantha, along with judgment- debtors No.2 and 3 i.e., his sisters, supported by documents Ex.0.1 Notarised copy of Ration Card, Ex.0.2 - Notarised copy of Voter ID, Ex.0.3- Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card, Ex.0.4-Certified Copy of Order Sheet in O.S.No.6416/2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 8. The Objector claims to have resided on the second floor since construction and the ground floor is rented out. He alleges that the Sale Agreement was executed behind his back and the decree was obtained fraudulently without his knowledge. He admits the filing of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC in O.S.No.3410/2014 to be impleaded, which was dismissed on 08/02/2016 as per Ex D.1 to Ex.D.4 and he did not challenge this order. 9. The Objector claims that, he learned of the execution proceedings in February 2021 and filed this application on 17/11/2021, asserting the sale deed affects his 1/4th share. He has also filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.6416/2021 claiming his share. 10. The decree-holders assert that application is not maintainable, denying that the Objector is the son of Smt.Shantha and claiming he is a stranger to the family. They rely the dismissal of application of Objector under Order I Rule 10 CPC in O.S.No.3410/2014, which was not challenged, arguing it attained finality and bars re-agitation under Section 11 CPC. They allege that the Objector's claim of learning about execution proceedings in February 2021 is false, as he was aware of the suit by 2016, and accuse him of perjury for swearing a false affidavit. 11. They argued that the application is barred by limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act 60 days from the sale date. citing Aarifaben Yunusbhai Patel vs. Mukul Thakorebhai Amin; (AIR 2020 SC 2344) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which holds that delays cannot be condoned under Limitation Act. They contend that the partition suit filed by the Objector in O.S.No.6416/2021 indicates impermissible parallel remedies. 12. The Objector's affidavit reiterates his status as a legal heir, supported by Ex.01 Ration Card, Ex.0.2 - Voter ID, Order Sheet in Aadhaar Card and Ex.0.4 O.S.No.6416/2021 He asserts residence at the schedule property and claims fraud in the Sale Agreement and decree. 13. In the cross-examination, the Objector admits that, he filed I.A. to be impleaded in O.S.No.3410/2014, but his application was dismissed in 2016 and he did not file Appeal or Writ Petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 challenging the order. He confirms not filing a separate suit to cancel the sale deed, but denies that his application lacks merit. He admits the filing of O.S.No.6416/2021 for partition after this application and insists he learned of the execution proceedings in February 2021, denying allegations of lying about his knowledge. 14. The Objector's admission of his 2016 impleadment application contradicts his claim of learning about the proceedings only in 2021, undermining his credibility. However, his documents Ex.O.1 to Ex.O.3 prima facie establish his identity and residence, supporting his claim as a legal heir. His failure to challenge the dismissal order of the year 2016 suggests acquiescence, but does not negate his right to challenge the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. 15. The decree-holders are examined as DW-1 and DW-2 and both affirm in their affidavits, denying the Objector's status as the son of Smt. Shantha and claiming he is a stranger. They produced Ex D1 to Ex.D.4 i.e., Order Sheet, Application, Objection and Order on I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.3410/2014 to show that application for impleadment of Objector was rejected. 16. In the cross-examination, both decree-holders deny entering the Sale Agreement behind the back of Objector, but admit that they cannot identify the persons in Ex.0.1 to Ex.0.3 i.e., Ration Card, Voter ID and Aadhaar Card. They claim inquiries with neighbors confirmed the Objector is not the son of Smt. Shantha, but fail to name these neighbors or produce them as witnesses. They admit knowing about the partition suit in O.S. No.6416/2021 filed by the Objector and critically, concede that it is incorrect to lie in court about the Objector not being the son of Smt. Shantha, despite initially denying his status. 17. The cross-examination of decree-holders reveals significant inconsistencies. Their inability to identify persons in the documents of the Objector and failure to produce neighbor witnesses weaken their claim that the Objector is a stranger. Their admission of lying about the status of Objector strengthens his claim of being a legal heir and suggests possible suppression in the Sale Agreement. However, this pertains to the agreement's validity, not the sale's conduct. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 18. Order XXI Rule 90, CPC allows setting aside a sale on grounds of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, provided substantial injury is proven. The Objector alleges fraud in the Sale Agreement by suppressing his existence, affecting his 1/4th share. However, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC is limited to irregularities or fraud in the sale process i.e., publication, auction conduct, not the underlying agreement or decree. 19. Article 127 of the Limitation Act prescribes 60-days period for filing applications under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. starting from the sale date 30/09/2019. The Objector claims that, he learned of execution proceedings in February 2021 and filed this application on 17/11/2021. His cross-examination admission of engaging in O.S.No. 3410/2014 in 2016 indicates prior knowledge of the suit, contradicting his claim of delayed knowledge. Even assuming that, he learned of execution proceedings in February 2021, the application is filed beyond 60 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aarifaben Yunusbhal Patel (supra) held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Order XXI Rule 90 applications and Section 14 exclusion of time for bona-fide proceedings is inapplicable here, as the Objector shows no other proceedings pursued diligently between September 2019 and November 2021. Thus, the application is time-barred. 20. The documents of Objector at Ex.O.1 to Ex.O.3 and the admissions of decree-holders in the cross-examination prima facie establish his status as a legal heir, raising doubts about the validity of Sale Agreement due to possible suppression. However, no evidence shows irregularity or fraud in the sale's publication or conduct i.e., improper notice, auction flaws. The grievance of the Objector targets the Sale Agreement and decree, which cannot be re-litigated in the execution proceedings. 21. The decree-holder argued that the dismissal of the application of Objector under Order | Rule 10 CPC in 2016 bars re-agitation under Section 11 CPC. While order passed in 2016 attained finality, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC permits objections to the sale process, distinct from impleadment in the suit. Thus, res judicata does not strictly apply, but the Objector's prior knowledge weakens his claim of fraud. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 22. The partition suit in O.S.No.6416/2021 filed by the Objector is not a bar, as it seeks division of his share, while this application challenges the sale's validity. However, his delay in asserting rights post-2016 undermines his case. 23. The Objector claims loss of his 1/4th share, but without evidence of irregularities in the sale process, substantial injury under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC is not established. His remedy, if any, lies in challenging the decree or pursuing the partition suit 24. The application is barred by limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, as it was filed beyond 60 days from the sale dated 30/09/2019 and no grounds for exclusion under Section 14 are shown. The admission of Objector in the cross-examination of prior engagement in 2016 contradicts his claim of delayed knowledge. The admissions of decree-holders in the cross- examination suggest possible suppression in the Sale Agreement, but Order XXI Rule 90 CPC requires proof of irregularity or fraud in the sale's conduct, which is absent. The documents of Objector establish his status as a legal heir, but his failure to challenge the dismissal order of 2016 and delayed action weaken his case. The request of decree-holders for perjury proceedings is not entertained, as the documents of Objector support his status, though his delay and inconsistencies affect his credibility. The remedy to the Objector, if any, lies in his partition suit in O.S.No.6416/2021 or other appropriate proceedings, not under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is answered in the negative. 25. Point No.2:- In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER I.A.No.1 filed by the Objector under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w section 151 of CPC, seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 30/09/2019, is dismissed as being barred by limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act and for failing to establish material irregularity or fraud in the publishing or conducting of the sale, as required under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. No order as to costs.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1651 WP No. 351 of 2026 4. In view of dismissal of IA No.1 filed in Ex.No.2220/2016 by the Executing Court prior to the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed in the said case, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court suffers from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 5. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as available in law including challenging the aforesaid Order dated 01.07.2025 passed on IA No.1 in Ex.No.2220/2016 subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43