- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 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. 32130 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI S. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. SMT. CHAITRA D/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1003, OLD B. CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, DODDABANASWADI, BENGALURU – 560 043. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHARATH M .R., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI K. INDU SEKAR, S/O LATE K. MOHAN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1-150, SRI. GOURIMANOHARA NILAYAM, NEAR 150’ BY-PASS-ROAD, BANGARUMITTA AVILALA POST, TIRUPATHI RURAL, CHITTOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 517 507 Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 2. SRI. S. SRINIVAS, S/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1003, OLD B. CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD, DODDABANASWADI, BENGALURU – 560 043 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. MUNIRAJU K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN EX.NO. 616/2022 AT ANNEXRUE-J OF THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the judgment debtors arises out of Ex.No.616/2022 on the file of the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Executing Court). 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 instituted a suit in O.S.No.8635/2010 against the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 said Sadananda and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as well as respondent No.2-defendant for permanent injunction pursuant to the alleged agreement dated 29.08.2008 said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise by filing joint compromise petition, which reads as under: “Application filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendants under Order 23 Rule 3 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:- It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff filed the above suit for the partial relief of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from in any manner alienating the property bearing Sy. No: 112/1 measuring Ac.0-29 Guntas and the land in Sy. No: 112/2, measuring Ac. 1.12 Guntas in all measuring Ac. 2-01 Guntas and both situated in Kowdenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and situated within the boundaries described in the plaint schedule as the plaintiff is the purchaser of the said property under the agreement of sale dated 29.08.2008 executed by the defendants. It is submitted that at the intervention of some of the elders and mediators, both the parties agreed to compromise the suit on the following terms and conditions. 1. That the defendants hereby ratify, confirm and accept the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 29-08-2008 executed by them in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 2. That the defendants 1 to 4 hereby undertake that they shall not alienate the plaint schedule property to any third party except to the plaintiff or to his assignee as per the terms of the agreement of sale dated 29-08- 2008. 3. That the defendants hereby agreed to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after disposal of the proceedings in Revision petition. No: 117/2010- 2011 which is pending on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner [Urban district] Bangalore. 4. That both the parties further agreed that in the event of the defendants failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff has got the option of getting the sale deed executed through process of law. Wherefore, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to decree the above suit in terms of the compromise as stated supra without costs and pass such other and further orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.” 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid joint compromise petition, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of the compromise petition as hereunder: “Suit claim: The Suit was filed on 10/12/2010, for judgment and decree against the defendants their men, agents, power of attorney holders from in any manner creating any find of encumbrance or alienating the Plaint Schedule property to third parties and cost of the suit and such other reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 This suit coming on this day for final disposal between Sri. A. Μ. Ramachandraiah XXIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, In the presence of Sri. R. Chalapathi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri. P. M. Balasubramani, Advocate for the Defendants. It is ordered and decreed that the suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed in terms of a compromise petition, vide copy of the compromise petition enclosed herewith. And that the sum of Rs.___________ Be paid by the defendant/s to the plaintiff/s on account of the cost of this suit. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 11th day of January 2011. For the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at 2000/- and the Court fee of Rs 50/- was paid. COST OF THE SUIT BY THE Plaintiff/s Defendant/s Rs. Rs. 1. Stamp paid on Plaint : 2. Stamp paid for power: 50/- 3. Stamp on I A's: 4. Service of Process: 100/- 5. Pleader's fee: 6. Paper Publication Charges: Total Rs: 150/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 Schedule All the piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 112/1 measuring Ac-0-29 Guntas and the land in Sy. No. 112/2 measuring Ac-1-12 Guntas in all measuring Ac-2- 01 Guntas and both situated in Kowdenahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobil, Bangalore East Taluk and situated within the following boundaries. East by: Land in Sy.No.112/4 West by: Land belonging to Venkataswamy Reddy and the land in Sy.No.113 North by: Govt Land South by: Land in Sy. No. 112/3 Sd/- 5. Subsequently, the aforesaid Sadananda expired on 06.03.2015, subsequent to which respondent No.1 instituted one more suit in O.S.No.926/2017 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of contract of the alleged sale agreement dated 29.08.2008 and for other reliefs. The said suit having been contested by the petitioners and respondent No.2, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2022 decreeing the suit in favour of respondent No.1 against the defendants. It is a matter on record and an undisputed fact that the petitioners herein and respondent No.2 have preferred an appeal in RFA No.731/2023, which is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 currently pending before this Court and in which there is an interim order of stay in favour of the appellants. 6. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 having instituted the instant execution proceedings, one Smt. Susheelamma filed two applications viz., under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claiming to be an obstructor/objector and application under Order XXI Rule 26 and 29 r/w. Rules 101 and 104 of CPC. The said applications having been opposed by respondent No.1-decree holder, the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order dated 16.10.2025 dismissing the application filed by the said objector/obstructor, Susheelamma, aggrieved by the said order passed against her, Susheelamma approached this Court. The aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court rejecting the claim of Susheelamma has attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon her. 7. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though they have filed objections to the main application and opposed execution proceedings on various grounds, while dismissing the applications filed by Susheelamma by passing the impugned order, the Executing Court has not provided any opportunity to the petitioners-judgment debtors to put - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 forth their contentions and has directed them to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff - decree holder and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the Statement of Objections filed by the petitioner to the execution petition on 08.06.2023 in order to contend that without considering the said objections, it was not permissible for the Executing Court to proceed further in the matter and pass any order against the petitioners and as such, the impugned order directing the petitioners to execute the sale deed deserves to be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1-decree holder does not dispute that the impugned order directing the petitioners to execute a sale deed has been passed without considering the objections filed by the petitioners. It is however submitted that respondent No.1 has filed an application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to get the sale deed executed through the Court as well as an application for permission for depositing balance amount by respondent No.1 and as such, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 the Executing Court may be directed to consider the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner and proceed further and dispose of the applications filed by respondent No.1, in accordance with law. 10. By way of reply Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that in addition to the aforesaid two applications filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner has also filed an application seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground of maintainability and the said application is also pending consideration. 11. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the Statement of Objections filed by the petitioners as well as the various interlocutory applications filed by both the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 are still pending consideration before the Executing Court as on today. 12. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the Executing Court to consider the rival contentions and objections filed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3147 WP No. 32130 of 2025 petitioners as well as the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner as well as respondent No.1, in accordance with law and proceed further, as expeditiously as possible. 13. Subject to the aforesaid directions and leaving/keeping open all contentions on all aspects of the matter to be decided by the Executing Court, the petition stands disposed of. The Executing Court is directed to dispose of the execution proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, bearing in mind the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.22485/2025. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21