Karnataka High Court
Palaiah vs Channamma on 20 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
WP No. 8866 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 8866 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. PALAIAH,
S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2. SURE PAPAIAH,
S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH,
AGED 47 YEARS,
3. SANNA PAPAIAH
S/O AJJANA SANNA PAPAIAH,
AGED 45 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST,
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI R/O NERALAHALLY VILLAGE,
Location: High MOLAKALMURU TALUK - 577 535.
Court of ...PETITIONERS
Karnataka
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANNAMMA,
W/O AJJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH,
AGED 56 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
WP No. 8866 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. KAMALAMMA APN,
D/O LATE AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH,
W/O VEERESH,
AGED 38 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. MANJAMMA APN
D/O AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH,
AGE 36 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. ESHWARI,
D/O LATE AJANA PAPAIAH @ PAPAIAH,
W/O PRAKASH, AGED 33 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O NERALAHALLY VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT QUASHING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITINERARY CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT MOLAKALMURU IN EX. NO. 13/2021 DATED
18.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WP AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
WP No. 8866 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Shri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Shri Siddappa B.M., learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
2. The Petitioners - judgment debtors are at the doors
of this Court in their third attempt to stall execution of the
decree. The plaintiffs - respondents, the decree holders,
institutes a suit in O.S.No.35/2016 for declaration and
possession. The suit comes to be decreed on 19.12.2020. The
petitioners herein files an appeal before the First Appellate
Court in R.A.No.6/2021, calling in question the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.35/2016, which comes to be dismissed on
08.04.2022. By then, the respondents had filed an execution
petition in Ex.No.13/2021 seeking to execute the decree in
O.S.No.35/2016. After the judgment in R.A.No.6/2021, the
petitioner files a regular second appeal before this Court in
RSA Nos.925/2022 and 928/2022, which comes to be
dismissed on 30.01.2023.
3. The order passed by this Court in RSA, aforesaid
was called in question before the Apex Court only to be
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
HC-KAR
dismissed. Therefore, before all the four fora, the petitioner has
lost his case. The Executing Court now passes an order
reissuing the delivery warrant as sought by the decree holders.
The petitioner was before this Court again in
WP.No.15539/2023 calling in question the order, which directed
police protection to be granted for the purpose of preparation
of 11E sketch. Due to efflux of time, the petition had rendered
infructuous and the coordinate bench closes the petition by the
following order:
"2.The petitioners are before this Court challenging
the order dated 19.06.2023 passed on I.A.No.6 filed
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(for short 'CPC') in Ex.No.13/2021 allowing I.A.No.6 on
the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Molakalmuru,
directing the PSI, Molakalmuru to give police protection
to Survey Department in order to prepare 11E Sketch.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that 11E Sketch is already prepared and
submitted to the Court. Further, he submits that police
protection provided to Survey Department has spent
itself. Therefore, writ petition would no more survive for
consideration.
4. Since 11E Sketch is already prepared and
police protection provided to Survey Department to
prepare 11E Sketch has spent itself, order under
challenge dated 19.06.2023 on I.A.No.6 in
Ex.No.13/2021 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Molakalmuru, would no more survive for consideration.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed off."
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
HC-KAR
The judgment debtors are again before this Court on a
feign attempt to contend that the impugned order now passed
is contrary to law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks to contend that the 11E sketch is not prepared in the
manner that is depicted under the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964, without hearing or notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, the order that is passed is contrary to law.
5. The order impugned reads as follows:
"Sri.ABU., Advocate brought notice of the Court
towards order of th eHon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
WP No.15539/2023 (GM-CPC) dated 31-10-2023.
It transpires from the order of the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka that, the above stated WP prepared
by the JDRs Challenging the order on IA no.6 granting
police protection to the Survey Department to prepare
11-E sketch is came to be dismissed.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that
11-E Sketch already prepared thus, writ petition is not
maintainable.
Now, Sri.A.B.U., Advocate pryas to issue delivery
warrant against JDRs. On the other hand, the learned
advocate appearing for the JDR's submitted that, no
delivery warrant should be issued as decree passed by
this Court is under challenge.
Heard both sides.
The learned advocate for the JDR's as not
produced any materials before the Court to show that,
the Judgment and decree passed by this Court is under
NC: 2025:KHC:21416
HC-KAR
challenge and same is stayed. Therefore, the objection
raised by the JDR's is not tenable. Under such
circumstances, prayer of JDR's not to issue delivery
warrant is without any basis. Order sheet
dated:10.06.2022 indicates that, my learned Predecessor
in office already issued a delivery warrant against JDR's.
Hence, there is no impediment to re-issue delivery
warrant as sought by the DHR. Otherwise, the decree
holder cannot enjoy fruits of decree. Office to re-issue
delivery warrant against JDRs. If PF is furnished. Call
on regular date i.e., 27-03-2024."
In the light of the aforesaid, plethora of cases filed and
failed by the petitioners, attempting to stall the fruits of the
decree, somehow or the other, has made his fifth attempt, in
the subject petition to stall, by urging contentions that is on the
face of it untenable, in law.
6. Finding no perversity in the order passed by the
concerned Court impugned in the subject petition, for this Court
to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petition lacking in merit stands rejected.
Interim order of any kind subsisting stands dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
