- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 27411 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI PATTTADA SRI PARVATHARAJA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU, SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LEGAL HEIR BY HIS LEGAL HEIR PATTADA SRI GURUNANJESHWARA SHIVACHARYA SWAMIGALU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PEETADIPATHI, HUNASAMARANAHALLI SAMASTHAN MUTT, JALA HOBLI, HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, (PRESENTLY YELAHANKA TALUK) BENGALURU-562 157. BENGALURU NORTH TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S A VERABADRAIAH S/O AIYYANNAPPA AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. S V ARUN KUMAR S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. S V NAVEEN KUMAR S/O S.A.VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R-1 TO R-3 ARE R/AT HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALORE NORTH-562 127. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 4. DR. CHANNASIDHARAMA PANDITHARADHYA, SHIVACHARYA MAHASWAMIGALU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SRI SHAILA PEETHADA JAGADGURU -1008 SRI SHAILAM POST, KARNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 510 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARADARAJA P N, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 SRI. HARSHA.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/08/2025 ON IA NO.III IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.18/2024 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. CONSEQUENTIALLY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the sole Decree Holder in Ex.No.18/2024 is directed against the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.3, whereby the Executing Court directed that the application filed by respondent No. 4-applicant under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to be impleaded as additional Decree Holder No. 2 and for adjudication of his rights was directed to be decided after conducting necessary enquiry before the Executing Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit in O.S.No.1835/2006 for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu was arrayed as defendant No. 1, while one R. Ramachandra was arrayed as defendant No. 2. So also, the aforesaid defendant No. 1 – Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu instituted one more suit in O.S.No.51/2007 against respondents 1 to 3 for declaration, possession, damages etc., in respect of the very same suit schedule property. The defendant No. 2 in O.S.No.1835/2006 remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit and the dispute was primarily between respondents 1 to 3 and Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu. By common judgment and decree dated 17.01.2015, the trial Court decreed the suit in O.S.No.51/2007 as against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed O.S.No.1835/2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, respondents 1 to 3 preferred R.A.No.15014/2015 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 R.A.No.15015/2015, which were also dismissed by the 1st appellate court. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and 1st first appellate court, respondents 1 to 3 herein approached this Court in RSA No.1000/2016 and RSA No.1001/2016. By judgment and decree dated 27.11.2023, the aforesaid second appeals preferred by respondents 1 to 3 were dismissed by this Court as hereunder: “ These two captioned second appeals are filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 questioning the concurrent judgments rendered in O.S.No.1835/2006 and O.S.No.51/2007 wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of injunction simpliciter in O.S.No.1835/2016 is dismissed by both the Courts and the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007 seeking the relief of declaration and possession is decreed by both the Courts. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court in O.S.No.1835/2006. 3. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 have filed the suit seeking injunction against the defendants by contending that they are the absolute owners. The first plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he has unauthorisedly put up residential houses and residing with his family members. At para (4) of the plaint, the first plaintiff has traced his right and title under the first defendant by contending that first defendant has relinquished rights in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 suit schedule property by receiving a sum of Rs.One Lakh. The bare suit for injunction is filed by the plaintiffs alleging that defendants without any semblance of right and title are interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession. 4. After receipt of summons, defendant No.1 tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. The first defendant contended that first plaintiff has no right and he had no semblance of title to sell the suit schedule property in favour of his children i.e. plaintiffs 2 and 3. First defendant claimed that there are four teachers quarters which were given to teachers who work in the school run by the Jungama Mutt. The defendant claims that first plaintiff is a Librarian and therefore, he was provided with quarters. Out of total four existing quarters, he was further provided additional quarter by the first defendant. However, defendant alleged that plaintiff No.1 also high handedly occupied the third quarters without permission of defendant No.1. It is contended that the suit schedule property belonged to Jungama Mutt and the same is under the management of defendant No.1. Therefore, contended that plaintiffs are not entitled to seek injunction. 5. Defendant No.1 on receipt of summons in O.S.No.1835/2006 has filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the suit schedule property is owned by the Mutt and consequently, sought for possession from plaintiffs and his children. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 6. The plaintiffs and defendants to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court has clubbed both the suits. The trial Court on examining the pleadings of the parties, answered Issue Nos.1, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.51/2007 in the affirmative and held that defendant No.1 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007 has succeeded in establishing that suit schedule property is the property owned by the Mutt. The trial Court while answering issue No.3(OS.No.51/2007) in the affirmative held that defendant No.1 has succeeded in proving that two sale deeds dated 31.1.2001 executed by plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.1835/2006 are null and void and not binding on defendant No.1/Mutt. While answering Issue No.5 (OS.No.51/2007) in the negative, the trial Court held that plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 have failed to substantiate that defendant No.1 has relinquished the rights over the suit schedule property in favour of the first plaintiff by receiving an amount of Rs.One lakh. On these set of reasoning, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit filed in O.S.No.1835/2006 and decreed the suit filed in O.S.No.51/2007. 7. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit filed in O.S.No.1835/2006 and the decree passed in O.S.No.51/2007 preferred two independent appeals in R.A.No.15014/2017 and 15015/2015. The Appellate Court has clubbed both the appeals and has independently assessed the evidence on record. The appellate Court while concurring with the findings of the trial Court was also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 of the view that plaintiffs have failed to substantiate that defendant No.1 relinquished the suit schedule property to the first plaintiff by receiving a sum of Rs.One lakh. The appellate Court was not inclined to look into the photocopy of the relinquishment deed marked at Ex.P1 on the ground that original deed is not produced. The appellate Court has concurred with the reasons of the trial Court in regard to admissibility of Ex.P1 and has also declined to examine Ex.P1. The appellate Court referring to the rebuttal evidence let in coupled with several admissions elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff No.1 was also of the view that since plaintiff No.1 is tracing his right and title under defendant No.1 and the title of defendant No.1 not being in dispute proceeded to dismiss both the appeals. These concurrent findings are under challenge by plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1835/2006 and plaintiff in O.S.No.51/2007. Perused the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 9. Let me examine the averments made by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006. Paragraphs No.2 to 4 would be relevant and therefore, I deem it fit to cull out the same. Paragraphs No.2 to 4 of the plaint in O.S.No.1835/2006 reads as under: "2. The Plaintiffs submit that the originally the property bearing Sy.No.93/1, 93/2, 93/4, now katha Nos.108, 109, 110 and 111 was belongs Jodi grama Village and other land situated at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 Hunasamaranahalli, Suggatta, (Nelakunte),Kodalgatte, Hosahalli, Bettaulsoor, Chikkajala, Devanahalli, Vijayapura, Chikkahobadevanahalli, Lingaderagelahalli and Kempalinganapura, under the control of Srimatta Saravadikari S.Thontadarya. After the abolition of the Jodi Grama Village the said Properties was controlled by the Village Panchayath Act. 3. The Plaintiffs submit that after the abolition of the Jodi Grama the village Panchayath was came into existence. Prior to the Jodi grama, the first plaintiff was unauthorisedly put up the residential houses and living along with his family members including the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2. After the existence of the Village Panchayath the first plaintiff has made a representation before the Village Panchayath to regularize the unauthorized occupation of the residential houses bearing No.93/1, 93/2, 93/4, 108, 109, 110 and 111 in all measuring 38’ x 69’ situated at Hunasamaranahalli village, which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule Property. 4. The Plaintiffs submit that to relinquish the rights over the schedule property, the first plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only to the first defendant and the first defendant has received the said amount from the first plaintiff for having received the said amount from the first plaintiff and in this regard the plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of the cheque dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 14.08.1995 and also possession for having relinquished his rights issued by the first defendant is at DOCUMENT NO.I AND II. As per the document No.II the defendant No.1 has received Rs.90,000/- by way of cash on 21.3.1995 and relinquished all his rights over the schedule property, and cheque for Rs.10,000/-." 10. The plaintiff is cross examined by the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 and several admissions are elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.1835/2006. It is useful for this Court to cull out the relevant portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1, which reads as under: "£À£Àß vÁvÀ ²æà vÉÆAlzÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁð¢PÁjAiÀÄVzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÁvÀ wÃjºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃÉ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ªÀÄoÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÁÝgÉ. £À£Àß vÁvÀ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁð¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ zÁRÉ £À£Àß CtÚA¢gÀ §½ EzÉ. £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄoÀzÀ DZɪÁ¸À EzÀÝgÀÄ, £À£Àß vÁvÁ¤UÀÆ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ DqÀ½vÀPÀÆÌ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ «zÁå¨Áå¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉÝ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ zÁRÉ E®è. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ¦ÃoÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ «£ÀAw¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ²æà ªÀÄoÀzÀ ºÁ¸ÀÖï £À°è GavÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ «zÁå¨Áå¸À ¥ÀÆgÉʹzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. 13. ºÀÄt¸ÀªÀiÁgÀ£ÀºÀ½î K¼ÀÆ HgÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆÃrzÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj. EzÀPÉÌ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁgÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj." 11. If the pleadings which are culled out supra and admissions elicited in cross-examination of plaintiff No.1 are looked into, then I am of the view that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts in holding that defendant No.1/Jungama Mutt is the owner of the land in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 question and the suit in O.S.No.51/2007 being for possession based on title is entitled to seek recovery of possession does not suffer from any infirmities. 12. If plaintiffs are asserting and tracing their rights through and have set up an unregistered relinquishment deed, which is marked as Ex.P.1, plaintiff No.1 cannot be permitted to turn around and dispute the title of defendant No.1/Jungama Mutt. Both the Courts, referring to these pleadings and also the admissions elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff No.1, have concurrently held that defendant No.1 has succeeded in substantiating that suit schedule property are owned by the Jungama Mutt and defendant No.1, being the peetadikari, is managing the same. The reasons and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court while answering issue No.1, do not suffer from any serious infirmities. The conclusions and reasons to the effect that defendant No.1/Jungama Mutt is the owner of the suit schedule property are based on the admissions not only tendered in pleadings, more particularly in the plaint, but also the admissions elicited in cross-examination of P.W.1. Plaintiff No.1, who is tracing his right under an unregistered relinquishment deed, further meddled with the property by executing sale deeds in favour of his sons, who are plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, both the Courts were justified in answering issue No.3 in O.S.No.51/2007 in the affirmative and against the plaintiff. Having held that the Jungama Mutt is the absolute owner, both the Courts were justified in directing plaintiffs in O.S.No.1835/2006 to hand over vacant possession. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 13. On meticulous examination of reasons assigned by both the Courts, who have elaborately dealt with pleadings, oral evidence and admissions which are culled out in detail by the Trial Court in the course of recording its judgment, I am of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 14. These regular second appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly stand dismissed. In view of dismissal of second appeal, all pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.” 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeals, Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu having expired, respondents 1 to 3 have filed an application I.A.2/2023 seeking impleadment of respondent No.4 herein as the legal representative of Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu and the said application was allowed by order dated 27.11.2023. In this context, it is pertinent to note that at that point of time, the petitioner herein filed two applications viz., I.A.No.3/2023 seeking correction in the cause title of the aforesaid judgment dated 27.11.2023 and sought to come on record as the sole legal representative of Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu and I.A.No.1/2024 to recall the order dated 27.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.2/2023. By order - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 dated 10.04.2024, this Court allowed the said applications and permitted the petitioner herein to come on record as the legal representative of respondent No.1-Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu as respondent No. 1A in the aforesaid RSA No.1000/2016 and RSA No.1001/2016, as hereunder; “ ORDER ON I.A.NOS.3/2023 & 1/2024 Learned counsel who had appeared for Sri Gurunanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu has filed an application in I.A.No.1/2024 to recall the order dated 27.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.2/2023. I.A.No.3/2023 is filed for correction of order dated 27.11.2023 in the cause title. 2. The second appeal is filed by the tenants assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below wherein suit filed by the original plaintiff for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.51/2007 is decreed by both the Courts. 3. Pending consideration of the second appeal, the original plaintiff died. The appellants/tenants filed three applications i.e., I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019 by contending that the earlier Swamiji of the Mutt attained moksha on 16.04.2018 and the present Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu is appointed as a successor and the management of the property of Hunasamaranahalli Samsthana Mutt is entrusted to respondent No.1(a). - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 4. I.A.No.3/2019 is contested by the impleading applicant namely Sri Gurunanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu by filing objections to I.A.No.3/2019. The impleading applicant contested I.A.No.3/2019 by placing on record the proceedings/function organized by the Mutt indicating that earlier Swamiji i.e., Parvatharaja Shivacharya Swamiji has taken Shishya and the said Shisya has ascended the peetha in the function organized by the Mutt on 21.03.2011. 5. The matter was listed on 09.11.2023 to hear on I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2019. It is quite interesting to note that proposed respondent who is set up by appellants/tenants submitted ‘no objection’ by contending that though he has filed statement of objections, he has no objection to allow the application. While the impleading applicant who claims to be the successor of earlier Swamiji and has placed on record the proceedings of function was not present on that day. This Court based on the submission made by the proposed respondent/ Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu that he has no objection to allow the LR applications, the applications were allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant filed application in I.A.No.2/2023 to recall the order dated 09.11.2023 passed on LR applications. Since this Court declined to entertain the second appeal and the appeal was dismissed on merits, this Court relegated the impleading applicant to establish his right in an independent proceedings. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 7. These two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.3/2023 and 1/2024 are filed by the impleading applicant. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant and learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 9. Few significant details warrant cognizance at the hands of this Court. While allowing the LR applications, this Court proceeded on an assumption that the contesting party who intended to come on record and contest the second appeal has conceded LR applications. The appellants/tenants are contending that earlier Swamiji i.e., Parvatharaja Shivacharya Swamiji had taken the Shishya and the said Shishya has ascended the peetha. While impleading applicant by placing on record the function conducted on 21.03.2011 claimed that he is the successor to the earlier Swamiji namely Parvatharaja Shivacharya Swamiji. 10. Anneuxre-R3 is an incident where the present impleading applicant in place of earlier Swamiji has filed a complaint with the police relating to theft of idol of Sree Renukacharya weighing 15 to 20 Kgs. 11. The question that arises for consideration at the hands of this Court is, as to whether the appellants/tenants who have suffered a decree for possession can set up a stranger as Swamiji and claim that he is the successor to the Mutt. This Court has to also gather the motive behind the appellants/tenants in setting up Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu who has not at - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 all contested the subsequent applications filed in I.A.Nos.3/2023 and 1/2024. 12. This Court would find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel Sri. K.Chandranath Ariga. He has pointed out that by bringing the said Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu on record as respondent No.1(a), the appellants/tenants have seen that this decree for possession granted in O.S.No.51/2007 will never be executed as respondent No.1(a) who is now brought on record is nowhere concerned to the Mutt and this would enure to the benefit of the appellants/tenants. 13. While allowing the LR applications, the counsel on record have not brought to the notice of this Court that impleading application filed by Sri Gurunanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu was pending consideration. The said application is not at all allowed. 14. Having examined all these relevant documents, this Court is of the view that the order passed on 27.11.2023 in I.A.No.2/2023 relegating the impleading applicant to establish his status needs to be recalled. On overall examination of the documents placed on record by the impleading applicant and bearing in mind that appellants/tenants with an oblique motive is contesting the impleading application, the order dated 27.11.2023 is liable to be recalled. If the impleading applicant is permitted to come on record as respondent No.1(a), no prejudice would be caused to the appellants/tenants. Insofar as - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu is concerned, this order will not come in his way to establish his status as a successor to the said Swamiji. 15. For the reasons stated supra, I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed and the order dated 27.11.2023 passed on I.A.No.2/2023 is recalled. The impleading applicant is permitted to come on record as a successor to original plaintiff. Consequently, application filed in I.A.No.3/2023 seeking correction in the cause title of the judgment dated 27.11.2023 is allowed and the name of respondent No.1A- Dr.Channasiddarama Panditharadhya Shivacharya Mahaswamigalu shall be deleted and the name of Pattada Sri Gurunanjeshwara Shivacharya Swamigalu shall be shown as respondent No.1A. 16. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the judgment dated 27.11.2023 and issue fresh certified copy of the same.” 5. The aforesaid order passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to come on record as the sole legal representative of Sri.Parvataraj Shivacharya Swamiji has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon respondents 1 to 3. Subsequent to the judgment and decree passed by this Court as stated supra, the petitioner instituted the instant execution proceedings in Ex.No.18/2024, in which, the petitioner herein was - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 the decree holder and respondents 1 to 3 herein were arrayed as judgment debtors 1 to 3. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, the 4th respondent herein filed the instant application I.A.No.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Order 21 Rule 97 CPC seeking impleadment as additional Decree Holder as the legal heir of the deceased Decree Holder - Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was a sole Decree Holder, whose rights has been upheld by this Court in RSA No.1000/2016 and RSA No.1001/2026, the 4th respondent, who put forth a claim as against the petitioner and in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 to 3, was not entitled to seek impleadment as additional Decree Holder, especially when the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 97 or under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and the trial Court committed an error in directing enquiry to be held in relation to an application which was not maintainable in law. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent had an independent right over the subject - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 matter of the suit and the appeals and as such, he was entitled to be impleaded as an additional decree holder in the execution proceedings necessitating conducting of necessary enquiry in this regard and the trial Court was fully justified in directing enquiry to be conducted before proceeding further in the matter. 8. A perusal of the material on record referred to supra, in particular, the judgment and decree passed by this Court in RSA No.1000/2016 and RSA No.1001/2016 will clearly indicate that the petitioner alone is the sole decree holder in whose favour the judgment and decree was passed by this Court. In addition there to, the request of respondents 1 to 3/Judgment Debtors 1 to 3 to implead the 4th respondent as an additional legal representative of Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2024, under which, this Court permitted only the petitioner to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased Pattada Sri.Parvataraja Shivacharya Swamigalu. It is needless to state that an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would be applicable only to a person claiming independent right than that of the Decree Holder and - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 Judgment Debtors and the said provision would not be applicable to a person claiming right along with the Decree Holder. 9. Further, the 4th respondent who was not permitted to be impleaded as legal representative in RSA No.1000/2016 and RSA No.1001/2016 as stated supra, cannot be permitted to come on record as additional Decree Holder by invoking Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the question of the trial Court fell in error in directing enquiry to be conducted on the application filed by the 4th respondent under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, both of which provisions are not applicable to the claim of the respondents and the impugned order directing enquiry on the said application is clearly erroneous, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 10. Insofar as the grievance of the 4th respondent who intends to put forth all his contentions are concerned, it is needless to state that the 4th respondent would be entitled to take recourse to such remedies as available in law and institute appropriate proceedings to establish his right in accordance with law and the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3119 WP No. 27411 of 2025 present order would not come in the way of the 4th respondent doing so in accordance with law. 11. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 in Ex.No.18/2024 by the Executing court is hereby set aside. (iii) The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings in Ex.No.18/2024 as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.