Karnataka High Court

K Indushekar vs Sadanda @ Ananda on 4 August, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                  -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:30043
                                                        WP No. 22485 of 2025


                   HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                          WRIT PETITION NO.22485 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    K.INDUSHEKAR,
                         S/O LATE K. MOHAN NAIDU,
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.1-150,
                         SRI GOURIMANOHARA NILAYAM,
                         NEAR 150 BYPASS ROAD,
                         BANGARUMITTA AVILALA POST,
                         TIRUPATHI RURAL,
                         CHITTOR DISTRICT,
                         ANDHRA PRADESH.
                                                                ...PETITIONER

                               (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE)
                   AND:
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI              SADANDA @ ANANDA
Location: High           SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
Court of
Karnataka
                   1.    SMT. RATHNAMMA,
                         AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
                         W/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA.

                   2.    S. MUNIRAJU,
                         AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                         S/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA.

                   3.    S. SRINIVAS,
                         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                         S/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA.
                                    -2-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC:30043
                                               WP No. 22485 of 2025


HC-KAR



4.    SMT. CHAITRA
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
      D/O LATE SADANANDA @ ANANDA.

      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1003,
      OLD B.CHANNASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
      DODDABANASWADI,
      BENGALURU 560 043.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTILCES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE TRIAL COURT TO CONSIDER THE EXECUTION
PETITION NO.616/2022 IN O.S.NO.8635/2010 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER          EXPEDITIOUSLY        AND     DISPOSE    OF     THE
EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN (ANNEXURE A), PENDING ON
THE    FILE    OF    PRL.   CITY   CIVIL   AND    SESSIONS    JUDGE,
BENGALURU        WITHIN     A   TIME     FRAME    THAT     WOULD    BE
STIPULATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.


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


CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                             ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following

prayer:

"I) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Trial Court to consider the Execution Petition 616/2022 in OS No.8635/2010 filed by the Petitioner expeditiously and dispose of the execution proceedings in

NC: 2025:KHC:30043

HC-KAR

(Annexure-A) pending on the file of Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru within a time frame that would be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; and/or II) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard Sri.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner-the decree holder in

O.S.No.8635/2010 institutes execution petition in the year

2022 is now before this Court on the score that the execution

proceedings are languishing before the concerned Court for the

last 3 years. He would seek to place reliance upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in case of Periyammal (Dead)

through Lrs. and Others V/s V.Rajamani and Another1 in

paragraph Nos.73, 74 and 75 held as follows:

"73. It is worthwhile to revisit the observations in Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein this Court has provided guidelines and directions for conduct of execution proceedings. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:

2025 SCC Online SC 507 decided on 06-03-2025

NC: 2025:KHC:30043

HC-KAR

42.1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order 10 in relation to third- party interest and further exercise the power under Order 11 Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third-party interest in such properties.

42.2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the court, the court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.

42.3. After examination of parties under Order 10 or production of documents under Order 11 or receipt of Commission report, the court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.

42.4. Under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.

42.5. The court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the

NC: 2025:KHC:30043

HC-KAR

extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.

42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits.

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "... in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which

NC: 2025:KHC:30043

HC-KAR

may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law.

42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts."

(Emphasis supplied)

74. The mandatory direction contained in Para 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceedings to be completed within six months from the date of filing, has been reiterated by this Court in its order in Bhoj Raj Garg v. Goyal Education and Welfare Society, Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 19654 of 2022.

75. In view of the aforesaid, we direct all the High Courts across the country to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions. Once the data is collected by each of the High Courts, the High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side. Once the entire data along with the figures of pendency and disposal

NC: 2025:KHC:30043

HC-KAR

thereafter, is collected by all the High Courts, the same shall be forwarded to the Registry of this Court with individual reports.

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex

Court, which directs that execution proceedings should be

concluded within an outer limit of Six months, I deem it

appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the

execution proceedings within an outer limit of 3 months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not earlier.

4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands

allowed.