Karnataka High Court
Sri Vasudeva vs Smt Leela L on 13 October, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40428
WP No. 31082 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 31082 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VASUDEVA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SRI RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
3. SRI ASHOK
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
4. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDING AT NARAYANAPPA
Digitally BUILDING, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI
signed by
NANDINI M S YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
Location: BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560 015.
OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K, ADV.)
AND:
SMT. LEELA L
W/O LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1109/A
3RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40428
WP No. 31082 of 2017
HC-KAR
(BY SRI K.N. MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARITLCES 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE DTD.24.6.2013 AND 21.11.2016
WITH RESPECT TO EX.CASE NO.2158/2010 VIDE ANNEX-C AND F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN
B GROUPTHIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction quashing the order passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-13) dated 24.06.2013 & 21.11.2016 with respect to Ex. Case No.2158/2010 vide Annexure-C & F and;
ii) issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case including as to the cost of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent had filed Execution Petition No.2158/2010 before the Trial Court alleging that the petitioners who are the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR judgment-debtors in O.S.No.6042/2003 had violated the judgment and decree of permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.6042/2003, and accordingly, had prayed to arrest the judgment-debtors and detain them in civil prison. The said execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC was allowed by the Executing Court vide order dated 24.06.2013 and having observed that the judgment-debtors had willfully disobeyed the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003, a show cause notice was issued to the judgment-debtors to show cause why action should not be taken against them for willful disobedience of the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003.
4. The judgment-debtors, thereafter, appeared before the Executing Court and filed a joint affidavit on 03.08.2013 stating that they were placed ex-parte in O.S.No.6042/2003 and they have given up their rights in respect of the suit schedule properties in O.S.No.6042/2003. It was also stated that they have not at all interfered with the possession of the decree- holders in respect of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.6042/2003. They also have stated that they have not disobeyed the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003, and -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR accordingly, prayed to drop further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued to them in Execution Petition No.2158/2010.
5. The Executing Court, by order dated 21.11.2016, has issued arrest warrant to the judgment-debtors, and being aggrieved by the same, the judgment-debtors are before this Court.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, during the pendency of this petition, in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26.06.2023, a further joint affidavit of the parties has been filed undertaking to obey the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003, and they have also stated in the affidavit that they would be responsible for any consequence in the event of there being any breach of the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003. He submits that the order holding that the judgment-debtors had violated the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003 was passed in the absence of the judgment- debtors. The consequence of such an order is very serious and in the event the decree-holder is not ready and willing to accept -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR the undertaking given by the petitioners in the joint affidavit filed by them, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to contest the execution case on merits.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the decree- holders submits that the decree-holder has filed objections to the joint affidavit filed by the petitioners before the Executing Court as well as before this Court. The undertaking in the joint affidavit is only on paper and the judgment-debtors have no intention to honour the undertaking in the joint affidavit filed by them. He submits that the decree has been passed on 15.06.2004 and because of the continuous interference by the judgment-debtors, the decree-holder is not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. From a perusal of the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003 dated 08.11.2004, it is seen that defendants in the said suit who are the judgment-debtors were placed ex- parte. In the year 2010, Execution Petition was filed in Execution Case No.2158/2010 by the decree-holder in O.S.No.6042/2003 alleging that judgment-debtors had violated -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR the decree of permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.6042/2003. After service of notice in the execution case, judgment-debtors had entered appearance before the Executing Court and had engaged the services of an advocate to defend their case. However, no objections were filed on their behalf, and subsequently, the advocate whose services was engaged by the judgment-debtors, had filed a memo seeking retirement from the case and the Court had accepted the memo and permitted the learned Advocate who was appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtors to retire from the case. Thereafter, based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the decree-holder, the order impugned dated 24.06.2013 was passed allowing the execution petition and holding that the judgment-debtors had willfully violated the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003 and a show cause notice was issued to the judgment-debtors and in reply to the show cause notice, a joint affidavit was filed stating that the judgment-debtors were not at all aware of the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003, since they were placed ex-parte in the said suit. They have also stated that they have not disobeyed the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003, and they have given up -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR the rights in the properties which are the subject matter of O.S.No.6042/2003, and accordingly, had sought to drop further proceedings in the execution case against them as contemplated in the order impugned dated 24.06.2013.
9. However, the Trial Court without considering the joint affidavit and the undertaking filed by the judgment-debtors, vide the order impugned dated 21.11.2016 has issued arrest warrant as against the judgment-debtors. In my considered view, since the order impugned dated 24.06.2013 based on which the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 was passed in the absence of the judgment-debtors who are held to be guilty of violating the decree passed in O.S.No.6042/2003 and since the orders impugned are of serious consequence which is likely to infringe the right to liberty guaranteed to the judgment- debtors, an opportunity to the judgment-debtors to contest the execution case on merits needs to be granted, failing which their case is likely to be prejudiced, more so having regard to the undertaking given by them in the joint affidavit filed before the Executing Court as well as before this Court. Under the circumstances, the following order:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:40428 WP No. 31082 of 2017 HC-KAR
10. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.06.2013 and 21.11.2016 passed in Execution Case No.2158/2010 by the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, and the judgment-debtors are granted permission to file their objections, if any, before the Executing Court in Execution Case No.2158/2010 on the next date of hearing before the Executing Court.
11. Since the execution case is of the year 2010, the Executing Court is directed to hold an inquiry in accordance with law and after hearing both the parties, dispose of the case on merits, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the next date of hearing.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK