Karnataka High Court
M/S Ashritha House Building Co ... vs Sri P D Chandrakanth on 20 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 34190 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ASHRITHA HOUSE BUILDING
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (REGD.,)
REGD. UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT, 1961
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 12 AND 13,
1ST FLOOR, SUMANA COMPLEX,
SHALIVAHANA ROAD, NAZARBAD,
MYSURU - 570 010
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT -
SRI. HONNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by S/O LATE. KEMPEGOWDA
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High
...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI. N.G. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. P.D. CHANDRAKANTH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE. P. DODDAPPAGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.202, AASHIANA APARTMENT,
NO.47/10, 6TH 'A' CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
2. SRI. A. PUSHPARAJA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O SRI. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,
RESIDING AT NO.603, S.L.R. MANSION,
1ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. MR. A.R. ABDUL RAZAK,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O MR. S. ABDUL RAHEEM,
RESIDING AT NO.42,
9TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, LIC COLONY,
JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 075.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED.16/10/2025 (ANNEXURE-G) ON I.A.NO.2 IN COM. EXE
PET. NO.654/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXXIV ADDL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(COMMERCIAL COURT) AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL UNJUST AND
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIALLY TO DISMISS IA
NO. 2 DTD 14.08.2025 ANNX-D FILED BY THE R-3 IN COM EXE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.654/2023 BEFORE THE HON BLE LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85)
(COMMERCIAL COURT), WITH DIRECTIONS TO COMPLETE THE
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE
FIXED BY THIS HON BLE COURT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the decree holder in Commercial Execution No.654/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.2, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.3/JDR No.3 seeking dismissal of the Execution Petition on the ground of lack/want of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the execution proceedings was allowed by the Commercial Court, which dismissed the Execution Petition as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court reads as under:
"ORDER ON IA No.2 -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR The Applicant/ JDR No.3 has filed present petition under Section 151 of CPC, seeking to dismiss the above execution petition as the same is not maintainable.
2. It is averred in the affidavit of JDR No.3 filed in support of the application that, Decree-holder had filed a claim petition before Arbitral Tribunal seeking relief in the form of specific performance for the assets located in Mysore. This court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present matter as the execution petition ought to have been filed, where the asset is situated. The decree cannot be executed in respect of a property, which is situated at Mysore District. It is further averred that decree-holder has filed this petition with malicious intention to harass Judgment debtor with multiple reliefs, despite as per Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, an application can be filed only for one relief. It is further averred that Decree-holder has failed to inform the court as prayed before the Arbitral Tribunal for specific performance and filed this petition for attachment of immovable as well as movable property, which is outside the scope of the Award. The conduct of Decree-holder shows that the right of specific performance is sought to be waived off. The award granted by tribunal mentions that the agreement can be executed only against those persons, who had paid the money to Decree-holder, before institution of Arbitration and as and when the amount fell due. In present case the award holder has not furnished the same before Arbitral Tribunal and this court being executing court cannot go behind the decree. Hence award cannot be executed without such claims being filed before tribunal and an award passed to that effect. Further nature of reliefs claimed before this court are different and two different reliefs cannot be clubbed in single execution petition. The Decree-holder has failed to provide proper schedule for execution of the award and description given in the petition is incorrect. The Decree-holder had to -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR first describe the schedule properties, which are due for registration and then mention the names of person who are approved by the tribunal for the registration of the properties. The Decree-holder has not produced books of accounts to show that amount was received before invoking arbitration clause. In addition to this, in award there is no mention about the sites for which the sale deeds have to be executed. These amongst other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the execution petition by allowing the application.
3. The DHR has filed objections to above application, wherein it is averred that, the application is highly mischievous by the reason of invalid grounds and same has been filed at belated stage, after being unsuccessful to get an order of stay before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Com.Appeal No.318/2025. The award sought to be enforced in this case has been passed in Arbitration Case No.196/2019 was initiated and conducted in Bengaluru City at Karntaka Arbitration Center, Kanija Bhavan Bengaluru. Therefore the seat of arbitration is Bengaluru and this court has jurisdiction to execute the award, notwithstanding that the schedule property is situated in the City of Mysore. Further Judgment debtor No.3 had preferred application under Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act before Commercial Court Bengaluru in Com.AP No.194/2023 and now he is estopped from contending that, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. Decree-holder society had taken all precautions to abide by direction in the award and accordingly as complied the same before filing this petition, by enclosing proof of documents. The award clearly mandates that Judgment debtor No.3 will have to join Judgment debtor Nos.1 and 2 in respect of remaining sites in favour of members of Decree- holder society, thereby covering any contingencies in the manner that whether such sites are yet to be -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR allotted or already been allotted by Decree-holder society. Therefore the details of said remaining sites, which are admittedly 37 sites are not mentioned in the award. However these sites are within the scope and comprehension of the released orders by MUDA, according to which, the execution petition clearly bears details of all the remaining 37 sites, properly and correctly, under the schedule of immovable property described in this petition.
4. It is further averred that, Decree-holder society, in above execution petition has chosen option No.3 as the relief sought for in above execution petition and as such Decree-holder has not sought multiple reliefs in above case. Accordingly the chosen relief is marked in bold, italics and underlined letters. Decreeholder society was supposed to make intimation first within a period of 45 days to the Judgment debtors for getting the sale deeds executed in favour of it's members. The society was supposed to secure the sale deeds within 60 days and there is no necessity of making payments by the Decree-holder to Judgment debtors unless and until they come forward to execute registered sale deeds. Accordingly intimations have been made by Decree- holder to Judgment debtors not only in respect of balance payments to be made as per the award, also about calling them for execution of registration vide letter dtd.09.10.2023. The proof of service of said letter is filed in the petition, now present application is filed with malafide intention to protract and to harass the members of Decree-holder society, which is evident from invalid nature of grounds. The IA is liable to be dismissed and Decree-holder will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, if same is allowed. These amongst other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the application.
5. The following points arise for consideration:
-7-NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR
1. Whether Judgment-debtor No.3 has made out grounds to dismiss the execution petition, as prayed for in the application?
2. What order or decree?
6. Heard arguments of both sides, perused records.
7. The followings are answers to above:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative. Point No.2:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1:- The Decree holder has filed present execution petition seeking direction against Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 to execute and register sale deeds for remaining 37 sites mentioned in petition schedule property in pursuant to award passed by Learned Sole Arbitrator in AC No.196/2019 and in case Judgment debtors failed to do so, to execute and register sale deeds in favour of said 37 members of Decree-holder society named in schedule of the petition, through the process of court. In support of present petition, the counsel for Decreeholder society has produced the award passed in aforesaid arbitration case and operating portion of award reads as follows:-
(a) Claim petition is allowed as under:-
i. Third Respondent to execute sale deeds along with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the remaining sites in favour of the members of the Claimant society, in whose favour sites will be allotted or have already been allotted by the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR Claimant society, within 60 (sixty) days from today without fail.
ii. The Claimant shall pay to the Respondents a consideration at the rate of Rs.620/- per sq.ft., in respect of the remaining area to be conveyed and this amount shall be paid as their respective share of 27.48% for Respondent No.1 Mr. Chandrakant, 31.75% for Respondent No.2 Mr. Pushparaj Shetty and 40.77% for Respondent No.3 Mr. Abdul Razak respectively.
iii. The Claimant shall intimate the Respondents the date on which it will be ready for getting the sale deeds executed in favour of its members, within 45 days from today and thereafter the Respondents to execute the same, failing which the Claimant can get the sale deeds executed through the assistance of the Executing Court.
iv. The 3rd Respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the Claimant as towards Legal Expenses and Miscellaneous Expenses under Section 31A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
v. Claimant has paid Arbitrator's fee, Administrative and Miscellaneous expenses of this Centre as it share and the same is liable to be borne by the 3rd Respondent in respect of which the Centre shall furnish a memo containing the details of the amounts paid by the Claimant towards Arbitrator's fee, Administrative and Miscellaneous expenses of the Centre.
vi. Counter claims raised by the 3rd Respondent stand rejected.
Vii. The stamp duty is payable as per Karnataka Stamp Act.
9. Now when the matter is set down for hearing on the question of liability of Decree-holder to deposit the amount as per aforesaid award, Judgment debtor no.3 has come up with present application seeking to dismiss the petition on aforesaid various grounds.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR
10. As far as initial ground with regard to claiming multiple reliefs in above execution petition is concerned, the counsel for Decree-holder has drawn attention of this court with regard to the prayer column of petition, wherein prayer No.3 has been highlighted in bold, italic and underline font seeking to direct Judgment debtors to execute and register sale deeds for remaining 37 sites of schedule property in pursuant to above award and as such question of claiming multiple reliefs under present petition does not arise and said objections raised by Judgment debtor No.3 stands overruled. Further as far as objection of Judgment debtor with regard to non mentioning of site numbers in schedule of petition is concerned, the decree holder has mentioned site numbers with boundaries along with names of corresponding member of decree holder society and it has clearly answered all other quarries raised by Judgment debtor in it's objection statement, which is not challenged by Judgment debtors by way of rejoinder/reply. Hence the aforesaid technical aspects raised by Judgment debtor no.3 in present application cannot be ground to dismiss the petition.
11. However the main ground urged by Judgment debtor No.3 is that, the property/sites mentioned in schedule of execution petition, which is sought to be registered in favour of members of Decree-holder society are situated in Mysore District and as such this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. On perusal of schedule of the petition, it shows that the schedule property/sites, which are part and parcel of residential layout called Ashritha Nest are situated in land bearing Sy No.181/3, 180/1, 181/2, 182/6, 180/2, 181/1, 182/1, 182/4, 182/5, 365, 182/2 of Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and it is specifically mentioned that out of 121 sites of above layout, Judgment debtors are liable to execute registered sale deed in respect of 37 sites mentioned in the schedule. Hence it is not
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR denied and disputed by both sides that, the above sites are situated in Mysore Taluk and District.
12. The counsel for Judgment debtor No.3 has vehemently argued that, this court cannot exercise it's executing jurisdiction over the assets, which are situated outside territorial jurisdiction of the court and this court is bound by civil procedure code for execution of award, as there is no other procedure contemplated under Arbitration Act or Commercial Courts Act. The said counsel has further relied upon Sec.39 of CPC and argued that, if a decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situated outside local limits of jurisdiction of the court which passed it, such court shall transfer the decree to the court of competent jurisdiction and said section expressly bars the jurisdiction of the court to execute such decree against any person or property outside its local jurisdiction.
13. On the other hand, counsel for Decree- holder has vehemently argued that, a commercial court is authorized to exercise jurisdiction to execute the decree, when person against whom the decree is passed or available within local limits of the court. He has further argued that, as Judgment debtors are residing in Bengaluru and as they have accepted the process of the court, there is no reason to oust the jurisdiction of this court in executing the award passed by Learned Arbitrator. The said counsel has further argued that, after termination of arbitration proceedings by passing award, Judgment debtor No.3 has admitted himself to the territorial jurisdiction of this court by preferring an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 in Com.AP No.194/2023, notwithstanding that the property as well as the Decree-holder situated outside the limits of this court and the court exercised its jurisdiction to pass the judgment on merits by dismissing the said Com.AP No.194/2023, vide judgment and order dtd.11.03.2025. Hence the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR conduct of Judgment debtor No.3 estoppes him from challenging territorial jurisdiction of this court. The said counsel has further argued that, by virtue of law envisaged in Sec.42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, there cannot be the two different courts, one for application under Sec.34 and another for application under Sec.36 of said act. Further as per Sec.10(3) of said act, all applications arising out of an arbitration shall be filed, heard and disposed off by Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration, where such Commercial Court has been constituted and hence in view of above provisions, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
14. Further the said counsel has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.9659/2025 and argued that, an Execution petition for arbitral awards are maintainable before Commercial Courts under Sec.10(3) of Commercial Courts Act. He has relied upon following paras of said judgment in support of his arguments and same are culled out as under:-
11........ The High Court of Gujarat in the case of ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA v. ULTRABULK A/S9 has held as follows:
"22. Proceeding to consider the issue on further merits, the question about jurisdiction of the Commercial Court to entertain the execution application has been answered in the reasoning and ratio of the decisions of the courts. Before the Division Bench of this Court in OCI Corporation v. Kandla Export Corporation, [(2017) 1 GLH 383: (AIR 2017 NOC 468 (Guj)], the issue was about transfer of execution petitions pending before the District Court, Gandhidham to the appropriate Commercial Court. It was the contention that the Parliament did not intend to apply provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to the execution of the foreign award which was sought to be executed in those cases. The execution proceedings were in relation to the arbitral
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR award, and the contention was raised for with reference to the definition of the 'commercial dispute' contained in Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, that it cannot be said that there was any 'commercial dispute' pending at the execution stage in as much as commercial dispute which had arisen between the parties was already decided and adjudicated.
23. While summing up the final decision, the Division Bench inter alia held and directed that, "Where the subject matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and if such arbitration is other than international arbitration, all the application or appeals arising out of such arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall be filed in and heard, decided and disposed of by the Commercial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration where such commercial court has been constituted."
24. In Vadodara Mahanagar Seva Sadan formally known as Municipal Corporation v. M.S. Khurana Engineering Limited, being Special Civil Application No. 13736 of 2018, the petitioner Corporation had challenged order of the Commercial Court in relation to the award of the arbitrator for which the execution petition was filed before the Commercial Court. The contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that though the application for setting aside the arbitral award may be pending before the Commercial Court, the execution petition of the contractor would not be competent as it was for the amount below Rs. 1 Crore.
25. The Division Bench stated and observed, "Section 37 of the CPC pertains to definition of Court which passed a decree and provides that the expression "Court which passed a decree", or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject pr.context, be deemed to include-[a] where, the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR instance, and [b] where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit.
Section 38 of the CPC pertains to "Court by which decree may be executed" and provides that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. In terms of Section 38 of the CPC, thus, a decree is executable by a Court which passed it."
26. It was observed that since the award was enforceable in terms of the Code of the Civil Procedure in the same manner as it was the decree of the Court, "the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter could be the court competent to execute it as per the Section 38 of the CPC." It was concluded that, "Since in the present case, jurisdiction of the subject matter which was part of the arbitration proceedings ordinarily lies with the Commercial Court and it was because of this reason that the application for setting aside the arbitral award was transferred to the Commercial Court, it was the Commercial Court which was competent to enforce the arbitral award; as if it were a decree of that Court."....
12. On a coalesce of the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and that of the respondent, the unmistakable inference is, my respectful agreement with the judgments rendered by the Division Benches of various High Courts, in particular, the one that is rendered in ARUN KUMAR JAGATRAMKA supra which considers the entire spectrum of law and holds that Section 10 is clear that execution petition also can be filed to execute a decree i.e., arbitral award before the Commercial Court, as the characteristics of a commercial dispute is not lost. Same is that of the Division Benches of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR other High Courts. In the light of unequivocal elucidation of law and the fact that elucidation of Gujarat High Court having become final, as the SLP preferred being dismissed, I deem it appropriate to follow the same. The unmistakable inference of all the narrations hereinabove is that the execution petition before the Commercial Court would become entertainable and maintainable. The submission that they would clog commercial Courts, as held by the Apex Court in plethora of judgments; that would not sway the elucidation of law or out-weigh the elucidation of law the Division Benches of the several High Courts quoted supra.
15. On the basis of aforesaid case of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka counsel for Decree-holder has vehemently argued that all the applications under Sec.10(3) of Commercial Courts Act 2015 include application for execution of arbitral award and as such this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition. He has further argued that no hardship will be caused to the process of the court as the physical presence of an executant of the sale deed on behalf of Judgment debtors is exempted under Sec.88(i) of Registration Act 1908 and further this court by exercising its power under order 21 Rule 34 of CPC will be appointing the Commissioner to represent the court before jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for execution of sale deeds, towards which Judgment debtors are bound to bear the costs imposed by the court.
16. However counsel for Judgment debtor No.3 has relied upon following caselaw of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported under (2018) 3 SCC 622 between Sundaram Finance Limited Vs Abdul Samad and another and vehemently argued that, in view of clear law laid down in above decision, no court can execute any decree or award in respect of
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR sale or specific performance of any property situated outside its jurisdiction. The relevant portion is culled out as under:-
Held: "Some High Courts are of the incorrect view that transfer of decree should first be obtained before filing the execution petition before the court where the assets are located. While other High Courts are of the correct view that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court as per Section 36 of the Act, which does not imply that the award is a decree of a particular court, and it is only a fiction. Thus, the award can be filed for execution before the court where the assets of the judgment debtor are located.
5.2. Jasvinder Kaur v. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.
2013 SCC OnLine HP 3904 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla -- The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the arbitration proceedings were to be settled in Mumbai in accordance with the said Act and the award had been made in Mumbai. Thereafter the learned Single Judge copiously extracted from the judgment of this Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited . (2013) 9 SCC 32 The learned Judge then proceeded to, once again, copiously extract from the then prevailing view of the Karnataka High Court where a learned Single Judge in ICDS Ltd. v. Mangala Builders (P) Ltd. 2001 SCC OnLine Kar 153, AIR 2001 Kar 364 had opined in favour of the aforesaid view.
B. An award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the said Code in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court as per Section 36 of the said Act does not imply that the award is a decree of a particular court and it is only a fiction. Thus, the award can be filed for execution before the court where the assets of the judgment-debtor are located.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR
14. We would now like to refer to the provisions of the said Act, more specifically Section 36(1), which deals with the enforcement of the award: "36. Enforcement.--(1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 to 1908), in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court."
The aforesaid provision would show that an award is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the said Code in the same manner as if it were a decree. It is, thus, the enforcement mechanism, which is akin to the enforcement of a decree but the award itself is not a decree of the civil court as no decree whatsoever is passed by the civil court. It is the Arbitral Tribunal, which renders an award and the tribunal does not have the power of execution of a decree. For the purposes of execution of a decree the award is to be enforced in the same manner as if it was a decree under the said Code.
17. Hence as rightly argued by counsel for Judgment debtor no.3, as per aforesaid caselaw of Hon'ble Supreme Court, an Execution petition for enforcement of an award shall be filed before Court, where the assets of the Judgment debtor are located and such execution petition can be filed anywhere in the country without even obtaining a transfer of decree from Court, which has jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings/award and within whose jurisdiction the award is passed. Under such circumstances the submissions of decree holder that in view of preferring commercial appeal No.194/2023 by JDr No.3 against impugned award, this Court has got jurisdiction to execute and enforce aforesaid Award cannot be accepted. Further in view of ratio laid down in aforesaid caselaw of Supreme Court, the
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR decree holder society is bound to file execution petition before Jurisdictional Court of Mysore District for enforcement of impugned award passed by Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.196/2019 as the petition properties are situated within territorial jurisdiction of said district. Hence the present execution petition is liable to be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to Decree holder to file the same before jurisdictional Court of Mysore district, where the petition schedule properties are situated. Hence point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2:- For the reasons stated and findings given on Point No.1, the following is:-
ORDER IA No.2 filed under Section 151 of CPC by the Applicant/ Judgmentdebtor No.3, is hereby allowed.
Execution petition is dismissed for want of Territorial Jurisdiction, with liberty to Decree holder to file the same before jurisdictional Court of Mysuru district, where the petition schedule properties are situated.
No order as to costs."
2. As can be seen from the impugned order, the Commercial Court has come to the conclusion that since the immovable property, which was the subject matter of Execution Proceedings, being situated at Mysore and the impugned Execution Proceedings being filed in Bangalore, the Commercial Court at Bangalore did not have territorial jurisdiction to
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR adjudicate upon the Execution Proceedings, which would necessarily have to be filed before the Jurisdictional Court of Mysore, where the petition schedule properties are situated.
3. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the schedule to the Execution Petition, which are as under:
"SCHEDULE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential layout called as "ASHRITHA NEST formed by M/s Ashritha House Building Co- operative Society (Regd.) in the lands bearing Sy. Nos.181/3 (1 acre), 180/1 (2 acres-10 guntas), 181/2 (1 acre-Igunta), 182/6 (20 guntas), 180/2 (18 guntas), 181/1 (35 guntas), 182/1 (31 guntas), 182/4 (24 guntas), 182/5 (21 guntas), 365 (3 acres 6 guntas), 182/2 (20 guntas) of Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli.
Mysuru Taluk, which layout is comprising a total number of 121 sites, out of which, the JDRs herein are liable to execute and register Sale Deeds in respect of the following 37 sites in favour of the respective members of the Decree Holder Society:-
Sl. Member's name SITE SITE DIMENSION Boundaries No. No. 1 Vinay Kumar.H.S. 116 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road (8.0+10.85)/2 mtrs West: Site No.115 Total:169.65 Sq. North: Site no 117 mtrs South by: Society's land 2 Sunil.R 108 12.00 mtrs X East: 9 mtrs Road (8.15+10)/2 mtrs West: Site No.94 Total:108 Sq mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road South by: Site No.107 3 Chandregowda 72 (19.85+16.80)/2 East: Site No.71 mtrs X 24 mtrs West: Road total:439.80 North: Road Sq.mtrs South by: Site Nos.73 & 74 4 Sheela.D.B. 97 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.108 (6.30+8.15)/2 mtrs West: 9 mtrs Road Total:86.70Sq mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road South by: Site No.69
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR 5 Gunasundari 48 (17.95_12.35)/2 East: Site No.49 mtrs X 20.70 mtrs West: Road total 313.64 North: Road Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.69 6 T.Sunil Kothari 21 9.00 mtrs x East: Site No.22 15.00 mtrs West: Road total 135 Sq.mtrs North: Road South by: Site No.28 7 B.V.Poornima 93 9.00 mtrs x East: Site No.92 15.00 mtrs West: Site No.94 total 135 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.80 South by: 9 Mtrs Road 8 N.Lokappa 2 18.00 mtrs x East: 12 mtrs Road 12.00 mtrs West: Private land Total 216 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.3 South by: Site No.1 9 Raghu D.M. 49 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.50 (19+19.50)/2 mtrs West: Site No.48 Total 23 Sq.Mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road South by: Private Land 10 S.M.Shadaksharaiah 31 (16.55+13.45)/2 East: Private Land mtrs X 18.00 mtrs West: Site No.32 Total 270 Sq.mtrs North: Site Nos.30&29 South by: 9 mtrs Road 11 K.V.Mahendra 87 (8.20+10.50)/2 East: Private Land Prashanth mtrs X 15.00mtrs West: Site No.88 Total 140.25 North: Site No.86 Sq.mtrs South by: Road 12 V.Sneha Bindu 51 12.00 mtrs x East: Site No.52 (20.50+23.45)/2 West: Site No.50 mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road Total 286.80 South by: Private Land Sq.mtrs 13 Manjunath.R 52 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.52 (23.45+24.35)/2 West: Site No.51 mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road Total 286.80 South by: Private Land Sq.mtrs 14 Borappa 50 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.51 (19.5 + 20.5) / 2 West:- Site No.49 mtrs total 240 North: 9 mtrs Road
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
Sq.mtrs South by: Private Land
15 Sneha.S. 96 (12.55+9.05) mtrs East: 9 Mtrs Road
X 15.00 mtrs Total West:- Site No.95
162 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.77
South by: 9mtrs Road
16 Vishwas Manjunath 69 17.50 mtrs X East: Private Land
(21.5+23.30)/2 West:- Road
mtrs Total 380.80 North: Site No.48
Sq. mtrs South by: Road
17 Mohan.C 78 9.00 mtrs X 15.00 East: Site No.79
mtrs Total: 135 West:- Site No.77
Sq.mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.95
18 D.Puttaiah 4 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road
12.00 mtrs West:- Private Land
North: Site No.5
Total:216 Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.3
19 Ramegowda K 20 8.65 mtrs X 15.00 East: Road
mtrs Total:129.75 West:- Site No.19
Sq.mtrs North: Road
South by: Site No.38
20 C.N.Shobha 68 (14.55+16.10)/2 East: Site No.67
mtrs X West:- Private Land
24.00 mtrs North: Site Nos.54&53
Total 367.80 South by: 24 mtrs Road
Sq.mtrs
21 Lokesh. N. 29 9.00 mtrs X East: Site No.30
15.00mtrs West:- Site No.298
North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site Nos.31
&32
22 B.V. Ragini 77 (6.5 + 9.05) / 2 East: Site No.78
mtrs X West:-12 mtrs Road
15.00mtrs North: Road
Total:116.62 South by: Site No.96
Sq.mtrs
23 Nandini 73 13.5 + 11 )/2 mtrs East: Site No.74
X (18.5 + 19.5) / 2 West:- 12 mtrs Road
mtrs total 232.75 North: Site No.72
Sq.mtrs South by: 9 mtrs wide
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
road
24 Bhagyalakshmi.D.H. 58 13.90 mtrs X East: Site No.59
18.00mtrs West:- Road
Total:250.20 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.64
25 Chandana Raj.M. 38 12.00 mtrs X East: Road
18.00 mtrs West:- Site No.39
Total:216 Sq.mtrs North: Site nos. 19&20
South by: Road
26 Kiran Kumar Shetty 47 (12.10+9.60)/2 East: Site No.46
mtrs X 18.00 mtrs West:- Road
Total:195.30
Sq.mtrs North: Site No.8
South by: Road
27 VIjaya Lakshmi 109 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.121
(7.15+8.70)/2 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total 95.01 Sq.mtrs North: 9 mtrs Road
South by: Site No.110
28 R.Preetham 64 19.45 mtrs X East: Site No.63
24.00 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total:466.80 North: Site Nos. 29&58
Sq.mtrs South by: 24 mtrs Road
29 Shantha.P. 1 18.00 mtrs X East: Road
(20.00+14.50)/2 West:- Private Land
mtrs North: Site No.2
Total: 310.50 South by: Road
Sq.mtrs
30 Kamala 92 9.00 mtrs X 15.00 East: Site No.91
mtrs West:- Site No.93
Total:-135 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.81
South by: 9 mtrs wide
road
31 Siddaraju.C. 8 (9.60+7.90)2 mtrs East: Site No.9
X 15.00 mtrs West:- Road
Total:206.25 North: Road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.47
32 Moganna 110 12.00 mtrs X East: Site No.120
9.00 mtrs West:-9 mtrs Road
Total: 108 Sq.mtrs North: Site No.109
South by: Site No.111
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
33 Prapulla.B.R. 106 12.00 mtrs X East: 9 mtrs Road
9.00 mtrs West:- Site No.99
Total:108.00 North: Site No.107
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.105
34 M.S.Ramesh 76 (15.00 East: Private Land
13.0+30)/2 mtrs West:- Site No.75
X18 mtrs North: Site No.70
Total:348 Sq.mtrs South by: 9 mtrs wide
road
35 Ravikala 37 14.85 mtrs X East: Site No.36
18.00 mtrs West:- Site No.28
Total:267.30 North: Site No.22&23
Sq.mtrs South by: Road
36 H.R.Parvathamma 57 13.10 mtrs X 18.00 East: Road
mtrs Total:235.80 West:- Site No.56
Sq.mtrs North: Road
South by: Site No.65
37 Guruprasad.S. 121 18.00 mtrs X East: 12 mtrs Road
(8.70+11.50)/2 West:- Site No.109
mtrs Total:181.08 North: 9 mtrs wide road
Sq.mtrs South by: Site No.120
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner, the impugned order may be set aside and the impugned Commercial Execution No.654/2023 may be directed to be transferred to the jurisdictional Commercial Court, at Mysore with a direction to the parties to appear before the Commercial Court on a particular date and a direction to the Commercial Court to dispose of the Execution Proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the light of the impugned order which specifically states that it is the Commercial Court at Mysore which has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Execution proceedings, the impugned order may be set aside and the impugned Execution Proceedings filed before the Commercial Court at Bangalore may be directed to be transferred to the Commercial Court at Mysore for adjudication in accordance with law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the undisputed fact that the execution schedule properties are situated at Mysore, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and exercise my jurisdiction and powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 24 of CPC and direct Commercial Execution No.654/2023 to be transferred to the Court of the Jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mysore by issuing certain directions in this regard.
7. In the result, the following:
ORDER
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584
WP No. 34190 of 2025
HC-KAR
i) Petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed on
I.A.No.2 in Com.Exe.Pt.No.654/2023 is hereby set aside.
iii) The registry of the Commercial Court at Bangalore is directed to transfer Commercial Execution No.654/2023 from the file of the Commercial Court at Bangalore to be transferred to the jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mysore for adjudication in accordance with law.
iv) The petitioner and respondents are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Commercial Court, at Mysore on 09.03.2026 without further notice from the Commercial Court, at Mysore.
v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to file objections before jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mysore, which shall proceed further and dispose of the Execution Proceedings in accordance with on or before 30.06.2026.
vi) The amount deposited by the petitioner/decree Holder in Commercial Execution No.654/2023 before the Commercial Court at Bangalore is
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10584 WP No. 34190 of 2025 HC-KAR directed to be transferred/transmitted to the Jurisdictional Commercial Court at Mysore to proceed further in accordance with law.
vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM, Sl No.: 5