- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 14500 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VASANTHA S/O LT NANJUNAPPA AGED 62 YEARS SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED R/AT NO 2152/16 WATER TANK ROAD D BLOCK, SAHAKAR NAGAR BANGALORE 560092 2. SRI MANJUNATH S/O LT NANJUNDAPPA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT NO 2152/16 WATER TANK ROAD D BLOCK, SAHAKAR NAGAR BANGALORE 560092 3. UMESH S/O LT NANJUNDAPPA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NO 2152/16 WATER TANK ROAD D BLOCK, SAHAKAR NAGAR BANGALORE 560092 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H.,ADVOCATE) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI NAGARAJ S/O LATE GURUMALLESHAPPAA AGED 57 YEARS R/AT NO 299/A RAMAMANDIRA ROAD KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560092 2. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE GURUMALLESHAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT NO 299/A RAMAMANDIRA ROAD KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE -560092. 3. SMT SUMITHRAMMA D/O LATE GURUMALLESHAPPA AGED 59 YEARS R/AT NO 299/A RAMAMANDIRA ROAD KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE -560092. 4. SMT MANJULA D/O LATE GURUMALLESHAPPA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO 299/A - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 RAMAMANDIRA ROAD KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE SAHAKARNAGAR POST BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE 560092 5. SRI VENKATASWAMAPPA S/O RAMAPPAA MAJOR, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGLAORE -560092. 6. KRISHNAPPA S/O LT GOWDARA MUNYAPPA MAJOR, R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGLAORE -560092. 7. SMT K ANUPAMA D/O KRISHNAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGLAORE-560092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V. MANJUNATHA GOWDA,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1, R3 & R4 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 21.07.2022, NOTICE TO R5 TO R7 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS W.P. UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.20.3.2019 PASSED BY VIII ADDL CITY CIVIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 JUDGE AND BENGALURU IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.83/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 20.03.2019 in Ex.Case No.83/2015, captioned Annexure-G, passed by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, arrest warrants have been issued against Judgment Debtors No.1, 2 (a) to (c) and 3. 2. The challenge in the present petition is being filed by Judgment Debtors No.2 (a) to (c), who are the petitioners before this Court. 3. The record reflects that, service to the respondents stands completed. However, none has appeared for the respondents today. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 4. This Court by order dated 21.07.2022, after prima facie examination of the issue, directed stay of execution proceedings in Execution No.83/2015. This order has continued till today. Given the pendency of this matter and the stay of proceedings before learned Trial Court, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 5. The brief facts are that, a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction, being OS No.8587 of 2002, has been filed against the petitioners as well as other defendants before the Learned Trial Court. By an order dated 06.07.2013, the suit was partly decreed and permanent injunction was granted in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to the extent of 29 guntas'. The relevant extract of the order is set out below : ORDER "In the result, therefore this suit filed by the plaintiff (LRs) against the defendants is hereby PARTLY DECREED. Consequently, permanent injunction is hereby granted in favour of the plaintiff (LRs) against defendants, restraining them from interfering with - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property to the extent of 29 guntas. The prayer of the plaintiff with regard to grant of mandatory injunction is hereby rejected as not proved and he is not owner. Draw decree accordingly." 6. An Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") setting out that the execution was sought qua the judgment debtors No.1 to 4 for enforcement of the decree. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application was stated to be filed on behalf of the decree holders setting out that the judgment debtors had disobeyed the decree and thus steps in accordance with law be taken against them. It is in pursuance of this application that the Impugned Order was passed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is passed by the Executing Court without any finding whatsoever. It has also not taken into account the provisions of the statute or the law in this behalf. He further submits that the application, was placed on record by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 judgment debtors, was not signed or supported by an appropriate affidavit. It also did not contain any details of the disobedience that the decree holders sought to allege against the judgment debtors. The learned counsel further submits that the affidavit that was annexed along with the application was signed by the counsel for the decree holders and not even by the decree holders themselves. 8. Learned counsel thus submits that, in these circumstances the Court could not have reached a conclusion that there was wilful disobedience of a decree and direct execution of arrest warrants. The learned counsel submits that unless the Court is satisfied that the person who has an opportunity of obeying a decree has wilfully disobeyed it, such a direction cannot be passed. Reliance in this behalf is placed on a judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shivamurthy Mahalingappa Kuchanaur vs. Dannammadevi Cycle Mart Rabakavi 1 which sets out the provisions of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and the ingredients prior to passing such an order. 1 AIR 1987 Karnataka 26 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 9. At this stage, it is apposite to set out the provisions of Sub Rule (1) of Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC which states that where a decree has been passed and a party, who has to obey such a decree, has wilfully failed to obey such a decree then, an order for detention of such party in civil prison or attachment of his property or both may be passed. Order XXI Rule 32(1) of CPC is set out below. "32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.-(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. A plain reading of the provision shows that the provision requires the Court to reach a finding that the decree has been wilfully disobeyed. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Shivamurthy case also clarified this in the following manner. "6. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Order XXI of the Code, in so far it is material for the present discussion, reads thus: “Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.” The sub-rule, as seen from its clear and explicit language, provides that a decree for injunction passed against a party could be enforced by his detention in a civil prison, if he has wilfully failed to obey such decree despite having had an opportunity of obeying it. In other words, the sub-rule, no doubt, enables a holder of a decree for injunction to seek its execution from the executing Court by requiring it to order the detention of the person bound by the decree, in a civil prison. But, the Court cannot, according to the same sub-rule, make an order for detention of the person unless it is satisfied that person has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and yet has wilfully disobeyed it. 7. If regard is had to the above scope and ambit of the sub-rule, it follows that the executing Court required to execute the decree for injunction against the person bound by that decree, by ordering his detention, cannot do so without recording a finding on the basis of the materials to be produced by the person seeking the execution of the decree that the person bound by the decree, though has had an opportunity of obeying the decree, has wilfully failed to obey it, as a condition precedent. Hence, what is required of the person seeking execution of the decree for injunction under the sub-rule is to place materials before the executing Court as would enable it to conclude (i) that the person bound by the decree, was fully aware of the terms of the decree and its binding nature upon him; and (ii) that person has had an opportunity of obeying such decree, but has wilfully, i.e., consciously and deliberately, disobeyed such decree, so that it can make an order of his detention as sought for. Thus, the onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 detention is sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention, lest the person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about its need." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. This Court has also perused the application that was placed on record. The application comprises of only one paragraph to indicate that the judgment debtors have failed to comply with the order and the decree. As set out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the affidavit also states that, it is the affidavit of one of the counsels appearing for the decree holder and only sets out that the judgment debtors are disturbing and interfering with the peaceful possession of the decree holders. The relevant extract of the Application filed and Affidavit is set out below: Application "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the applicant/petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue arrest warrant against the judgment debtors as the Judgment Debtors had failed to comply the order passed in OS No.8587/2002 dated 06.07.2013, in the interest of justice and equity." Affidavit "1. I submit that I am one of the Counsels appearing for Decree holder in the case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 2. I submit that the decree holder filed the above Petition for disobeying the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8587/2002 dated 06.07.2013. I submit that, as the Judgment Debtors had failed to comply the order passed in OS No.8587/2002 dated 06.07.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Even after passing decree against the Judgment debtor they are disturbing and interfering with peaceful possession of the Decree Holders. The Decree Holders cannot enjoy the order of this Hon'ble Court. Hence this application for order for issuance of arrest warrant against judgment debtors." [Emphasis Supplied] 12. The application clearly does not set out who had wilfully disobeyed the decree and what wilful disobedience was done. It does not also refer to any incident or any details of such wilful disobedience. The application is also neither signed by the decree holders nor the affidavit in support of such application had been filed. The Impugned Order is cryptic, to say the least and only states that the application be allowed in the interest of justice. No reason as such in the application is stated so as the Court to allow the application or to explain the fact that, the application has not been signed by the decree holders, has been set out. 13. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2998 WP No. 14500 of 2022 14. The Writ petition is allowed. Consequently, IA No.3 is dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. 15. The order passed today shall however not preclude the decree holders from exercising appropriate remedies, in accordance with law, in the event that there is a disobedience by the judgment debtors. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE rs/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA