- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 21749 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 204 II STAGE, K.H. RANGANATHA COLONY BENGALURU - 560 026. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAIK N.R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MAHADEVA S/O ORUGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 73 NANJAPPA AGRAHARA, 10TH CROSS, CHAMRAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHARMESH A, ADVOCATE) R - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28.9.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN EXECUTION NO.20/2020 AND SAME IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ACCEPT THE MEMO DTD 03.03.2022 WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 order 28.09.2022 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Execution No.20/2020 (herein after referred to as "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the application under Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners/judgment debtor has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts are that, the petitioners and the respondent executed a memorandum of settlement on 27.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "MOU"). In view of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 mediated settlement between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the judgment debtors have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to the decree holder on or before 26.06.2020. The MOU also contained a clause that in the event of failure to make the payment within time, the judgment debtors would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the decree holder in respect of the suit schedule property. A decree was passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2022 in terms of the mediated settlement. 3. Since the judgment debtors did not make the payment on time, the respondent/decree holder filed the execution petition. During the pendency of these execution proceedings, a memo was filed by the decree holder stating that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) has already been deposited, hence, the decree holders cannot seek for an enforcement of the execution of the same. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the payment in terms of the MOU had already been complied with and thus the execution could not have been allowed. He further submits that the payment was delayed in view of COVID-19 pandemic. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 However, the payment has now been made. Thus, the application was filed objecting to the execution proceedings. It is contended that the amounts have already been deposited by way of DD with the Axis Bank, Bengaluru and the memo setting out the same has already been filed on 20.04.2022. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the application dated 20.04.2022 are set out below: "2. I submit that the decree holder in the above case has filed the above execution petition praying for execution of the sale deed in respect of the schedule property or in the alternative directing the judgment debtors to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to him as per the decree. The decree holder has not compiled with the condition that he should deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- as per the decree and therefore his first prayer seeking for execution of the sale deed is forfeited and he is not eligible for the decree of specific performance. 3. I submit that as per the compromise entered between us before the mediation center, we have deposited the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- due to the decree holder as per the decree and same is deposited in the above case vide DD no.076840 dated 18-4-2022 drawn on Axis Bank, Cox-town branch, Bangalore and memo is also filed on 20-4-2022. Hence, the decretal amount is paid to the decree holder. The decree holder may be directed to withdraw the same in satisfaction of the decree". [Emphasis supplied] 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder on the other hand, contends that pursuant to a mediated settlement, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 an agreement was executed between the parties which contained a default clause, in terms of which, if the payment was not made by the date fixed, then the decree holder would be at liberty to enforce the agreement of sale dated 28.05.2012. Reliance in this regard is placed on paragraphs No.2 and 3 of the MOU which have also been extracted in the Impugned Order and which are set out below: "2. That in the course of mediation, the plaintiff and defendants have resolved their dispute, the Defendants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) as full and final satisfaction of the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has agreed to receive the said sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) as full and final satisfaction of all his claim. That the Defendants have agreed to pay to the Plaintiff a sum Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 26-05- 2020, upon payment of the agreed amount the agreement of sale dated 28-05-2012 stands cancelled. 3. Both parties agree that in the event Defendants fail to pay the aforesaid money, the Plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the agreement of sale dated 28- 05-2012. That the Defendants also agree to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 26-06-2020." [Emphasis supplied] 6. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly disallowed the application filed by the petitioners/judgment debtor. Since, the judgment debtors - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 failed to comply with the terms of the mediated settlement as extracted in the MOU, the consequences would follow. 7. This Court has perused the MOU which is annexed at Annexure-C. The MOU sets out that the suit filed was referred to mediation for resolving disputes between the parties. During mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on 27.11.2019. The MOU sets out that the parties have resolved their disputes through a mediated settlement. It further sets out that the defendant No.1/petitioner had previously executed an agreement to sale dated 28.05.2012 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property described therein for a sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-. It further sets out that during the course of mediation, the parties have resolved their disputes and the defendants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiffs and upon such statement, the agreement of sale dated 28.05.2012 would stand cancelled. The MOU also sets out in the event that the defendants fail to pay, the plaintiff would be at liberty to enforce the agreement for sale dated 28.05.2012 and also that they will agree to execute the sale - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 deed in favour of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property by receiving the balance consideration. It is apposite to extract the MOU below: "I. The aforesaid suit is referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, the parties along with their respective advocates participated in the mediation and that the parties have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions: 1. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale dated 28.05.2012 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby to sell the suit schedule property Doddabeli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk measurita property site bearing No.43, Katha No.1/4-B situated east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet bounded on East By-25 Feet Rood West By-Site No.73 North By-Site No.44 and South By-Property of Chinnapaa and others for a sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only). The defendants denied all the allegations of plaintiff. 2. That in the course of mediation, the plaintiff and the defendants have resolved their dispute, the defendants have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) as full and final satisfaction of the claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has agreed to receive the said sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) as full and final satisfaction of all his claim. That the defendants have agreed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 26.05.2020, upon payment of the agreed amount the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 agreement of sale dated 28.05.2012 stands cancelled. 3. Both parties agree that in the event defendants fail to pay the aforesaid money, the plaintiff is at liberty to enforce the agreement of sale dated 28.05.2012. That the defendants also agree to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 26.06.2020." [Emphasis Supplied] 8. This Court has examined the application filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors as well as the Impugned Order. No ground has been set up in their application as to why the MOU was not complied with by the decree holder. However, the petitioners/judgment debtors have contended that the decree holder has not complied with the condition that he should have deposited the balance consideration as per the decree. Thus, the prayer for execution of sale deed stands forfeited. 9. A decree was passed on 12.12.2019 by the learned Trial Court in terms of the settlement, between the parties. The learned trial Court after examining the facts and the documents placed before it, came to a conclusion that the application filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors is without any merit and thus was dismissed. The respondent/decree holder was also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before the next date of hearing in terms of the MOU. It is apposite to extract the order passed by the learned Trial Court which reads as follows: ORDER "The memo filed by the judgment debtors is rejected. It is made clear that the decree-holder is entitled to obtain sale deed from the judgment-debtors in respect of E.P. schedule property. The decree-holder is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- before this Court towards balance sale consideration by next date of hearing. As the decree-holder has already filed draft sale deed, office is directed to verify the same and make a note in the order sheet to that effect. For compliance by 20-10-2022." [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Undisputedly, instead of making payment on or before 26.05.2020, the payment was made almost two years later on 03.03.2022. The MOU is duly signed and confirmed by the parties as well as their counsel. It is not disputed by petitioners/judgement debtors that the MOU had been executed. The terms of the MOU have also not been disputed by the petitioners/judgment debtors. It is also not disputed by the petitioners/judgment debtors that the payment has not been made as per timeline as set out in the MOU. All that has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3576 WP No. 21749 of 2022 been contended by the petitioners/judgment debtors is that they have made the payment, but after a delay. 11. Concededly, there is no agreement between the parties to make payment beyond the stipulated date. The MOU, however, does provide for execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent/decree holder by receiving the balance consideration, in the event of the payment not being made in time. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder has confirmed that the balance consideration in terms of the order dated 12.12.2019 has already been deposited. In view of the aforegoing discussions, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RJ/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA