- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2026 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: SMT NAMALA INDRANI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O.NAMALARAVINDER R/AT.NO.15-10-196/2, RAMSONPET, WARANGAL, ANDHRA PRADESH- 506 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O.MUNIYAPPA, R/AT. FLAT NO.CA-08-07, 8TH FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK, KSR CORDELIA, DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, HEBBALKEMPAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 024. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 2. M/S.KSR PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1936, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DURGA ARCADE, NO.5, 1ST FLOOR, MCHS, K.V.JARAYAM ROAD, JAKKUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 004 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.K.RAMANA REDDY. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOA) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/11/2025 PASSED BY OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 64/2024 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 306/2022, AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND VOID; B) DECLARE THAT THE CONSUMER FORUM HAS NO JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE RELIEF OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR TO DIRECT EXECUTION OF A REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY; C) QUASH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING EXECUTION PETITION NO. 64/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU AS BEING UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has entered into an agreement with the second respondent to purchase a flat in a residential complex known as 'KSR Cordelia' and developed by the second respondent in Dasarahalli Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 25.11.2025 by the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Commission'] in Execution Application No.64/2024. 2. Sri S G Muniswamy Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 petitioner's grievance with the aforesaid order, places on record the following circumstances. [a] The first respondent has purchased the Flat from the second respondent and has instituted a complaint with the Commission in CC No. 306/2022 which is allowed by the order dated 13.12.2023 directing the second respondent to execute the sale deed for the subject property with clear title while granting certain other reliefs. [b] The petitioner has bona fide entered into agreement which is registered on 23.11.2023 for a total value of Rs.40,19,200/- and has paid the entire amount under the agreement. 3. The first respondent has filed a suit in OS No. 4601/2024 on the file of the III Additional City - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court'] for permanent injunction and the first respondent has also filed an application for interim application which is allowed by the civil Court restraining the second respondent from transferring the flat in favour of the petitioner. The first respondent has initiated the execution application in No.64/2024 for directions to execute the sale deed in terms of the Commission's order dated 13.12.2023. The petitioner has preferred an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 [for short, 'the CPC'] objecting to the enforcement of the Order dated 13.12.2023 resulting in a sale deed for the property. The second respondent's whereabouts are not known and the petitioner may not have lost the right to seek specific performance of the agreement dated 23.11.2023. 4. The question for consideration is whether this Court must intervene with the Commission's - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 impugned order on an application under Order XXI to Rule 97 of CPC when it is not disputed that the petitioner does not assert right independent of the second respondent who has suffered the order with a direction for execution of the sale deed. The answer, in view of the trite position in law, is that there cannot be interference because of the same. At this stage, Sri S G Muniswamy Gowda submits that he would request this Court to decide on whether the Commission could proceed to enforce its order for execution of the sale deed when the first respondent's suit in O.S. No.4601/2024 is pending and when the petitioner has not lost the right to seek specific performance for enforcement of the rights under the Agreement dated 23.11.2023. 5. On a careful consideration, this Court finds that the Commission must examine these questions as well before it proceeds to pass any further order on the enforcement of its order for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2837 WP No. 1362 of 2026 execution of the sale deed in favour of the second respondent. As such, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an application in this regard and calling upon the Commission to decide on such application before any order is passed, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-