[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sanjaykumar vs Suryakant on 26 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
WP No. 204171 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 204171 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
1. SANJAYKUMAR
S/O DHANAJI,
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND LEGAL PRACTITIONER,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST; BIDAR - 585 417.
2. RAJIV
S/O DHANAJI DIED LRS
2(A) SUSHEELBAI
W/O DHANAJI
Digitally signed by
AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS,
BASALINGAPPA OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
Location: HIGH TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DIST; BIDAR - 585 417.
2(B) LAXMIBAI
W/O LATE RAJIV
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
WP No. 204171 of 2025
HC-KAR
2(C) SHRUTI
D/O LATE RAJIV
AGE ABOUT 17 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
2(D) RAJESH
S/O LATE RAJIV
AGE ABOUT 15 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
2(E) VENKATESH
S/O LATE RAJIV
AGE ABOUT 14 YEARS,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
PETITIONERS 2(C) TO 2(E) ARE MINORS,
R/AT UNDER THE CARE AND
CUSTODY OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
PETITIONER NO.2(B)
LAXMIBAI
W/O LATE RAJIV,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HANMANTRAYA SINDOL, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
WP No. 204171 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND
1 . SURYAKANT
W/O VISHWANATH,
AGE; 61 YEARS,
OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O: VILLAGE SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
2 . BABURVAHAN
S/O BANDEPPA
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAVALI,
TQ: AURAD-B (KAMALNAGAR),
DIST: BIDAR - 585 417.
....RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL
COURT CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT AURAD-B IN EP
NO.71/2017 DATED 05.12.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-J, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
WP No. 204171 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed this writ petition
challenging the order dated 05.12.2025 in E.P.No.71/2017
passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Aurad-B.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
Respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.38/1989
against the petitioners for declaration of title and for
recovery of possession, on the file of the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Aurad(B). The said suit came to be
dismissed. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.38/1989, preferred the
regular appeal in R.A.No.15/2004 on the file of Presiding
Officer FTC-IV, Bidar (for short, 'the First Appellate
Court'). The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal vide
judgment dated 03.08.2007, and set aside the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.38/1989. The petitioners
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
HC-KAR
R.A.No.15/2004, preferred the regular second appeal in
RSA No.2629/2007 on the file of this Court. This Court
dismissed the regular second appeal vide order dated
01.06.2016. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 filed an
execution petition in E.P.No.71/2017 for recovery of
possession. The petitioner filed an objection to the said
execution petition. Respondent No.1 filed an application in
I.A.No.13 praying for issuing warrant for delivering of
possession. The said application was opposed by the
petitioners by filing objections. The executing Court
allowed I.A.No.13 and issued warrant for delivery of
possession. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and decree
passed in RSA No.2629/2007, preferred a Special Leave
Petition, which is pending for consideration. Hence, the
learned counsel submits that the executing Court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
HC-KAR
committed an error in passing the impugned order.
Hence, on this grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1
filed a suit in O.S.No.38/1989 before the trial Court. The
trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. Respondent
No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.38/1989, preferred a regular appeal in
R.A.No.15/2004. The First Appellate Court set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and
decreed the suit of Respondent No.1. The petitioners
aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in
R.A.No.15/2004, preferred a regular second appeal in RSA
No.2629/2007 on the file of this Court. This Court
dismissed the second appeal.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the petitioners filed a special leave
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7932
HC-KAR
petition, admittedly the petitioners have not produced any
interim order. In the meanwhile, respondents have filed
an execution petition. In the execution petition,
respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.13 praying to issue warrant
for delivery of possession. The executing Court considering
that the petitioners have not produced any interim orders,
there is no legal impediment for executing Court for
issuing delivery of warrant of possession in the absence of
interim order. The executing Court has rightly passed
impugned order. Hence, I do not find any error in the
impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
BL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
