- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.100251 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. TARAMATI W/O. CHANDU @ CHANDRAKANT VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NANDIKURALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJSHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. AKASHANI PRABHAKAR SHINDE SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES PRABHAKAR SHANKAR SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. PRIYANAKA W/O. RAMESH BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. YUVARAJ S/O. PRABHAKAR SHINDE, WRONGLY SHOWN AS YUVARAJ PRAKASH SHINDE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARRS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 4. EKANATH CHANDU @ CHANDRAKANT VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. RAGHUNATH CHANDU @ CHANDRAKANT VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SHRINATH CHANDU @ CHANDRAKANT VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. GEETA W/O. EKANATH VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 8. APPA GOPAL VANJIRE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANJARI-591213, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO, a) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI IN E.P.NO.123/2024, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, AND b) FURTHER ALLOW THE I.A.NO.II FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN E.P.NO.123/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKODI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order is passed in I.A. No. 2 filed under Section 151 CPC dated 29.07.2025 by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikodi, the judgment debtor is before this Court. The respondents herein who are the Decree Holders have filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 301/2019 that came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 26.08.2023. The order of the court below in O.S. No. 301/2019 reads thus: “The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby partly decreed. The defendants are hereby restrained permanently from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property i.e. lands bearing R.S. No. 223 measuring 01 acre 10 guntas, R.S. No. 226 measuring 05 and half guntas and the land bearing R.S. No. 7/4B of Manjari village covered under the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 26/2002 by way of perpetual injunction, subject to outcome of the O.S. No. 53/2013. No order as to costs.” Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein has preferred R.A. No.53/2023 and no stay was granted in the said appeal. In the meantime, the respondent/decree holder has filed the Execution - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 Petition, i.e. Execution Petition No. 123/2024. In that, the present application is filed by the petitioner herein stating that the said petition cannot be decided till the outcome of the suit, i.e. O.S. No. 53/2013. The application came to be dismissed by the Court by way of impugned order. While dismissing the same, the Court has observed that it is to be stated by the judgment debtor whether there is a stay by the Appellate Court or the present Court as to the decree passed in O.S. No. 301/2019. There is nothing on record pertaining to the same. Even though it is mentioned in the decree that it is subject to the outcome of O.S. No. 53/2013, which is still pending as per the contention of both sides, in spite of it, there is a decree which is in existence and therefore the filing of regular appeal against a decree, that too when there is no stay, is not a ground to dismiss the execution petition. As such judgment debtor has not made out any ground to allow the application and accordingly dismissed the petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the suit is pending i.e O.S. No. 53/2013, at this stage the respondent cannot execute the decree. The Court ought to have considered the said submission and ought to have stayed the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 execution. It is submitted that if the decree is executed, it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner/judgment debtor. 3. Having heard the learned counsels on appearing for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts in this case are that the suit O.S. No. 301/2019 that is filed by respondent herein on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC was decreed on 26.08.2023. Against that, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal R.A. No. 53/2023, and no stay was granted in the appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Court ought not to have ordered execution of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 301/2019 and it has to be stayed till the outcome of O.S. No. 53/2013. In that case, he could have pressed for the I.A in the Appellate Court and got an order from the court. Admittedly, no such interim order is granted and the appeal is at the stage of arguments. When there is no order in the regular appeal that is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 301/2019, the Executing Court cannot stop the execution proceedings by considering the application that is filed by the judgment debtor. The Executing Court had rightly observed that there is a decree staring at the petitioner and it has to be executed unless and until any order is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:515 WP No. 100251 of 2026 passed by the Appellate Court in the pending regular appeal and the Court rightly had dismissed the I.A. that is filed by the petitioner. This court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Executing Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. Sd/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI BVV CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74