Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri R Ravikumar on 13 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
WP No. 1589 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1589 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE K. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. N. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE K. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SMT. RANJITHA
D/O LATE K. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL RESIDING AT 4TH SHOP LANE,
TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK S.REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. ANIL KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
CHANDANA
BM SRI R RAVIKUMAR
Location: S/O K.M. RAMA REDDY,
High Court of AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Karnataka
R/AT NO. 18, 7TH CROSS,
30TH MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE
OF THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT THEM THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 14.01.2026 IN E.P.NO. 2474/2022 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 41)
BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
WP No. 1589 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the Judgment Debtors in Ex.No.2474/2022 on the file of 40th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 14.01.2026, whereby the Executing Court directed issuance of commissioner warrant in favour of the respondent - Decree Holder.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while according to the petitioners-Judgment debtors, the draft sale deed which was said to have been filed in the Court on 14.02.2025 was not furnished to the petitioners-JDRs as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.336/2024 dated 11.03.2024. The respondent-Decree Holder would contend that he had actually furnished the said draft sale deed to the petitioners- JDRs in compliance with the directions of this Court. In the earlier -3- NC: 2026:KHC:9332 WP No. 1589 of 2026 HC-KAR round of litigation in the aforesaid W.P.No.336/2024, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
" This petition is directed against the impugned Order dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.2474/2022 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-41), Bengaluru, whereby, allowing the application I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent/decree holder seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed, so also, the Order dated 18.12.2023 issuing Commissioner warrant by the Executing Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent/ decree holder instituted the instant execution proceedings to implement and enforce the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.586/2015, whereby, the Trial Court directed the petitioners/ judgment debtors to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/decree holder.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners/ judgment debtors that respondent/decree holder had not furnished the draft sale deed before the Executing Court as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the Trial Court having not followed the procedure contemplated under the said provisions, the impugned Order suffers from procedural illegality and patent infirmity warranting interference in the present petition, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs. Suraj Bhan & anr passed in Civil Appeal No.1700/2022 dated 28.02.2022.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9332 WP No. 1589 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. It is therefore submitted that the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set-aside and respondent/ decree holder as well as Executing Court be directed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ decree holder submits that in the execution proceedings which presently stands posted on 27th March 2024, the respondent/ decree holder would furnish the draft sale deed before the Trial Court, who may be directed to follow the prescribed procedure and proceed further in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the undisputed fact that respondent/decree holder had not furnished the draft sale deed before the Executing Court as required under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set-aside and the matter remitted to the Executing Court, by issuing certain directions.
7. According, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.2474/2022 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-41), Bengaluru, and the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:9332 WP No. 1589 of 2026 HC-KAR Order dated 18.12.2023 issuing Commissioner warrant by the Executing Court are hereby set-aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/ decree holder to furnish the draft sale deed before the Executing Court on the next date of hearing and also serve a copy to the petitioners/judgment debtors, so as to enable the Executing Court to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
4. As can be seen from the directions issued by this Court, the respondent - Decree holder was directed to furnish the draft sale deed before the Executing court and also serve a copy on the petitioners-JDRs. Under these circumstances, since there is an ambiguity/discrepancy between the parties as to the actual service/furnishing of the draft sale deed by the respondent - Decree Holder in favour of the petitioners, in order to expedite the proceedings which are now posted on 20.02.2026, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Executing Court -6- NC: 2026:KHC:9332 WP No. 1589 of 2026 HC-KAR for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.
5. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.01.2026 passed in Ex.No.2474/2022 by the Executing court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The respondent - Decree holder shall furnish a copy of the draft sale deed either the petitioners or their learned counsel on 20.02.2026 before the Executing Court.
(v) It is made clear that in the event the petitioners or their learned counsel are not present and remain absent before the Executing Court on 20.02.2026, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent - Decree holder to furnish a copy to the Executing Court to enable the same to be delivered to the petitioners - Judgment debtors.
(vi) Upon the respondent furnishing the draft sale deed to the petitioners-JDRs as stated supra, the Executing Court shall provide -7- NC: 2026:KHC:9332 WP No. 1589 of 2026 HC-KAR an opportunity to both the parties and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law and dispose of the Execution proceedings within a period of two months from 20.02.2026.
(vii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.