- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13956 WP No. 33249 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 33249 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MARIGOWDA, S/O. LATE GOOLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SHIVASHANKARA. M., S/O. MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH RESIDING AT ARECHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI N. SHANTHKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHANDRASHEKAR H. B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKEGOWDA @ GUJJEGOWDA, S/O. LATE GOOLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT ARECHAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A. KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BASAVAIAH C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13956 WP No. 33249 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR IN R.A.No.29/2025 PRODUCED ATANNEXURE- A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER This writ petition impugning the order dated 14.10.2025 passed on I.A. No.1 filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) in R.A.No.29/2025 by the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, seeking stay of the judgment and decree dated 11.07.2025 passed in O.S. No.601/2015. 2. Sri N. Shanthkumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri H.S. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Appellate Court committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Order XLI Rule 5 of the CPC on the ground that the decree of injunction is not executable. Learned counsel submits that, in view of Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC, a decree of injunction is executable and, therefore, the order of the Appellate Court is unsustainable. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13956 WP No. 33249 of 2025 3. Per contra, Sri C. Basavaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the impugned order is dated 14.10.2025. He further submits that the appeal itself is posted for final hearing and that, if the Appellate Court is directed to reconsider the application seeking stay of the decree, it would further delay the disposal of the appeal. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, now that the appeal has reached the stage of final hearing, if the present petition is entertained and the Appellate Court is directed to re- adjudicate the application in the light of Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC, it would result in further delay in the final disposal of R.A. No.29/2025. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submits that the respondent is in possession. However, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in possession, it would suffice if the Appellate Court is directed to dispose of R.A. No.29/2025 within a time-bound period. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13956 WP No. 33249 of 2025 6. Considering the facts involved in the case, the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur, is requested to dispose of R.A. No.29/2025 at the earliest, within an outer limit of three months from today. Either of the learned counsel is directed to place a copy of this order before the Appellate Court to ensure compliance with the above direction. 7. In view of the direction issued to the Appellate Court, learned counsel for both parties fairly submit that either party shall not precipitate the issue. The submission is placed on record. 8. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18