Smt Rekha W/O Ravi Siddaramashettar vs Basanagouda Mallanagouda Patil
2025 Latest Caselaw 10185 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Rekha W/O Ravi Siddaramashettar vs Basanagouda Mallanagouda Patil on 13 November, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536
                                                        WP No. 106138 of 2025


                        HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                          BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 106138 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

                       BETWEEN:

                       SMT.REKHA W/O RAVI SIDDARAMASHETTAR,
                       AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                       NOW R/O. BHOOMI APARTMENT, A-BLOCK,
                       FLAT NO.404, 4TH FLOOR,
                       AKSHAY COLONY, HUBBALLI,
                       DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
                                                                ... PETITIONER
                       (BY SMT.VIDYAVATI M.KOTTURSHETTAR, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       BASANAGOUDA MALLANAGOUDA PATIL,
                       AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                       R/O. VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
                       DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
                                                                 ... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                       (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
                             THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
                       THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
                       THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
                       16.07.2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.5245/2025 BY THE
                       LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
                       SITTING AT HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF
                       JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
                       CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2025 PASSED
                       ON I.A. NO.I IN EXECUTION CASE NO.5245/2025, DIRECTING
                       POLICE AID AND WOMEN POLICE ASSISTANCE VIDE ANNEXURE-
                       B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                   -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536
                                            WP No. 106138 of 2025


 HC-KAR




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

                             ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

2. The petition is filed assailing the order dated

16.07.2025 passed in Execution case No.5245/2025, on the file

of learned V Additional District Judge, sitting at Hubballi.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated

16.08.2025 passed on I.A.No.I in the aforementioned execution

proceeding. The order at Annexure-A, which is impugned, would

indicate that delivery warrant is issued against the judgment

debtor pursuant to the decree passed on 13.07.2024 in Lok-

Adalat in Commercial Appeal No.100005 of 2024.

4. In terms of Annexure-B, police protection is granted

to execute the delivery warrant on the premise that there was

obstruction as the delivery warrant was not executed on earlier

occasion.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited

the attention of the Court to the joint memo dated 13.07.2024

and more particularly, the clause No.4 in the said joint memo,

which was the basis for the Court to pass the decree as per

Annexure-D. The Clause No.4 reads as under:

"4. The appellant has agreed to hand over the actual and vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff / respondent without any further extension after the period of ten months till the end of May 2025 from today which is on 31.05.2025. The plaintiff shall refund the deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- without any objection at the time of handing over the possession of the property. It also agreed by the appellant/ defendant in case he fails to hand over the actual and vacant possession of the property on 31.05.2025 he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the defendant / respondent till he hands over the actual and vacant possession of the property."

6. Referring to the said clause, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that earlier, there was a stipulation that

the petitioner shall handover possession of the property within

10 months from the date of the compromise, which ended on

31.05.2025 and it is also stipulated that the plaintiff has to

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

return security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/- to the judgment debtor

at the time of delivery of possession.

7. Referring to the further condition in the said clause

No.4, it is urged that, in case, the appellant/defendant fails to

handover the actual and vacant possession of the property on

31.05.2025, the appellant/defendant shall pay a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- per month to the defendant/respondent till he

hands over the actual possession of the vacant possession of the

property.

8. Referring to the aforementioned clause, it is urged

that the petitioner/defendant could not hand over the possession

of the property before the stipulated date on account of

unavoidable circumstances that, the petitioner's new premises is

still under construction and the construction could not be

completed as such, the petitioner is not in a position to shift the

stock to the proposed new premises.

9. Learned counsel would also urge that since then the

petitioner is paying ₹1,00,000/- as agreed and he prays to

extend the time till 31.03.2026 to handover the possession as

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

the petitioner is expecting to complete the construction by

31.03.2026 and he will be in a position to move to the new

premises.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit

that the petitioner is ready to file undertaking in the form of an

affidavit to the aforementioned effect.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that the petitioner's proposed new premises is by and large

complete and said premises is measuring approximately 15000

square feet. The petition premises is measuring 1600 square feet

and the petitioner's new premises comprises three floors and the

petitioner can conveniently shift all the stock in the petition

premises to the new premises which is by and large complete.

12. Learned counsel would also submit that based on the

assurance in the joint memo filed by the parties before the Lok

Adalat, the respondent has already entered into a lease

agreement in respect of the petition premises and he was

required to handover the possession of the property to the new

lessee by 01.10.2025 and since the petitioner has not handed

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

over the possession, the respondent could not perform his part

of the obligation under the new lease agreement.

13. The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and perused the records.

14. The rights and liabilities of the parties have been

finally settled in terms of the joint memo which is accepted by

the Lok Adalat and based on which, a decree is passed.

15. Clause 4 of the joint memo would mandate the

petitioner/defendant to handover the possession of the property

by 31.05.2025. Till today, the possession is not handed over.

Though there is a clause which incorporates a stipulation that the

petitioner/defendant has to pay ₹1,00,000/- till the possession is

handed over if it is not handed over by 31.05.2025, that clause

cannot be interpreted to say that by paying ₹1,00,000/-, the

defendant can continue to be in possession of the property. That

clause is incorporated only to ensure that if there is any delay on

the part of the defendant, the plaintiff should be compensated.

The defendant cannot take shelter under the said clause to seek

extension to handover the possession of property by 31.03.2026.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

16. The Court has also perused the photographs

produced by both parties depicting the current state of the new

building where the defendant is proposing to shift. The fact that

the defendant's new premises is having three floors and

measures approximately 15000 square feet is not in dispute. It is

not in dispute that the petitioner's premises is around 1600

square feet.

17. Considering the status of the construction, this Court

is of the view that the petitioner can shift the stock to the new

premises. Whether the petitioner can commence the business in

the new premises or not is not a matter to be decided.

18. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has

urged that the petitioner is giving an undertaking in the form of

an affidavit, the respondent is not willing to extend the tenure.

19. Under these circumstances, the Court has to consider

whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is

erroneous or illegal. In terms of the impugned order, the Trial

Court has only given effect to the decree which is binding on

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15536

HC-KAR

both parties. Hence, no fault can be found in the said order, in a

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

20. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(ii) The possession warrant shall be executed after one week from today. This breathing time is granted to the petitioner to shift the materials from the petition property to any other premises.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

AM, CLK CT:BCK