Karnataka High Court
Smt Rekha W/O Ravi Siddaramashettar vs Basanagouda Mallanagouda Patil on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536
WP No. 106138 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 106138 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.REKHA W/O RAVI SIDDARAMASHETTAR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
NOW R/O. BHOOMI APARTMENT, A-BLOCK,
FLAT NO.404, 4TH FLOOR,
AKSHAY COLONY, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.VIDYAVATI M.KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASANAGOUDA MALLANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
16.07.2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.5245/2025 BY THE
LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SITTING AT HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2025 PASSED
ON I.A. NO.I IN EXECUTION CASE NO.5245/2025, DIRECTING
POLICE AID AND WOMEN POLICE ASSISTANCE VIDE ANNEXURE-
B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536
WP No. 106138 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.
2. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Execution case No.5245/2025, on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, sitting at Hubballi.
3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in the aforementioned execution proceeding. The order at Annexure-A, which is impugned, would indicate that delivery warrant is issued against the judgment debtor pursuant to the decree passed on 13.07.2024 in Lok- Adalat in Commercial Appeal No.100005 of 2024.
4. In terms of Annexure-B, police protection is granted to execute the delivery warrant on the premise that there was obstruction as the delivery warrant was not executed on earlier occasion.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the joint memo dated 13.07.2024 and more particularly, the clause No.4 in the said joint memo, which was the basis for the Court to pass the decree as per Annexure-D. The Clause No.4 reads as under:
"4. The appellant has agreed to hand over the actual and vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff / respondent without any further extension after the period of ten months till the end of May 2025 from today which is on 31.05.2025. The plaintiff shall refund the deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- without any objection at the time of handing over the possession of the property. It also agreed by the appellant/ defendant in case he fails to hand over the actual and vacant possession of the property on 31.05.2025 he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the defendant / respondent till he hands over the actual and vacant possession of the property."
6. Referring to the said clause, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier, there was a stipulation that the petitioner shall handover possession of the property within 10 months from the date of the compromise, which ended on 31.05.2025 and it is also stipulated that the plaintiff has to -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR return security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- to the judgment debtor at the time of delivery of possession.
7. Referring to the further condition in the said clause No.4, it is urged that, in case, the appellant/defendant fails to handover the actual and vacant possession of the property on 31.05.2025, the appellant/defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the defendant/respondent till he hands over the actual possession of the vacant possession of the property.
8. Referring to the aforementioned clause, it is urged that the petitioner/defendant could not hand over the possession of the property before the stipulated date on account of unavoidable circumstances that, the petitioner's new premises is still under construction and the construction could not be completed as such, the petitioner is not in a position to shift the stock to the proposed new premises.
9. Learned counsel would also urge that since then the petitioner is paying ₹1,00,000/- as agreed and he prays to extend the time till 31.03.2026 to handover the possession as -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR the petitioner is expecting to complete the construction by 31.03.2026 and he will be in a position to move to the new premises.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner is ready to file undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the aforementioned effect.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's proposed new premises is by and large complete and said premises is measuring approximately 15000 square feet. The petition premises is measuring 1600 square feet and the petitioner's new premises comprises three floors and the petitioner can conveniently shift all the stock in the petition premises to the new premises which is by and large complete.
12. Learned counsel would also submit that based on the assurance in the joint memo filed by the parties before the Lok Adalat, the respondent has already entered into a lease agreement in respect of the petition premises and he was required to handover the possession of the property to the new lessee by 01.10.2025 and since the petitioner has not handed -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR over the possession, the respondent could not perform his part of the obligation under the new lease agreement.
13. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
14. The rights and liabilities of the parties have been finally settled in terms of the joint memo which is accepted by the Lok Adalat and based on which, a decree is passed.
15. Clause 4 of the joint memo would mandate the petitioner/defendant to handover the possession of the property by 31.05.2025. Till today, the possession is not handed over. Though there is a clause which incorporates a stipulation that the petitioner/defendant has to pay ₹1,00,000/- till the possession is handed over if it is not handed over by 31.05.2025, that clause cannot be interpreted to say that by paying ₹1,00,000/-, the defendant can continue to be in possession of the property. That clause is incorporated only to ensure that if there is any delay on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff should be compensated. The defendant cannot take shelter under the said clause to seek extension to handover the possession of property by 31.03.2026. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR
16. The Court has also perused the photographs produced by both parties depicting the current state of the new building where the defendant is proposing to shift. The fact that the defendant's new premises is having three floors and measures approximately 15000 square feet is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's premises is around 1600 square feet.
17. Considering the status of the construction, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can shift the stock to the new premises. Whether the petitioner can commence the business in the new premises or not is not a matter to be decided.
18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is giving an undertaking in the form of an affidavit, the respondent is not willing to extend the tenure.
19. Under these circumstances, the Court has to consider whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous or illegal. In terms of the impugned order, the Trial Court has only given effect to the decree which is binding on -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536 WP No. 106138 of 2025 HC-KAR both parties. Hence, no fault can be found in the said order, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) The possession warrant shall be executed after one week from today. This breathing time is granted to the petitioner to shift the materials from the petition property to any other premises.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM, CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64