Smt G Gopamma v. Sri. Hanumaiah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1345/2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. G. GOPAMMA W/O SRI. CHIKKANANJEGOWDA D/O SRI. PUTTARANGAIAH AGED 49 YERARS.

¶2SRI. CHIKKANANJEGOWDA S/O SRI. PATEL NANJEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS.

BOTH ARE R/AT YERDAHALLI MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TQ TUMKURU DIST 577201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADV.,)

AND:

SRI. HANUMAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED 65 YEARS R/AT NO.643, 10TH B CROSS 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK WEST OF CHORD ROAD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU 560079. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADV., FOR SRI. P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT)

by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 04.01.2022 PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.123/2009 BY THE HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNIGAL BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 10(b) OF CPC WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-J & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

04.01.2022 passed in Execution Case No.123/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kunigal (for short, 'the Executing Court').

¶2Heard Sri.N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.M.Gopi, learned counsel for Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶3The respondent had filed suit in O.S.186/2001 against the petitioners for the relief of

specific performance of agreement of sale which came to be decreed on

30.09.2005. Being aggrieved, petitioner/judgment debtors have challenged the said judgment and decree in RFA No.1852/2005 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 07.10.2009. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.186/2001 has attained finality. Thereafter, the respondent/decree holder initiated the execution proceedings way back in the year 2009 and the case was registered as Execution Case No.123/2009. In said proceedings, petitioners/judgment debtors have raised various objections, and the Executing Court has overruled the said objections vide order dated 30.10.2010. The said order has attained finality. Thereafter, the respondent/decree holder has filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 10(B) of CPC seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder. The Executing Court considering various aspects recorded reasons that decree in

O.S.No.186/2001 has attained finality, petitioners/judgment debtors have failed to execute the sale deed as ordered in the decree and in order to avoid the execution of the sale deed, they are making unnecessary objections in the execution proceedings and proceeded to appoint the Court Commissioner. The said order is under challenge.

¶4The perusal of the order under challenge and the grounds urged in the petition, I am of the considered view that the Executing Court taking note of all the aspects has come to conclusion that petitioners/judgment debtors are unnecessarily objecting the execution proceedings with an intention to drag the proceedings further and to avoid the execution of sale deed and has proceeded to appoint Court Commissioner. I do not find any error in the impugned order calling for interference in this petition. The writ

petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, rejected. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25