Karnataka High Court

Sri Jayarma vs Smt. G S Uma on 24 November, 2025

Author: S Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:48480
                                                            WP No. 2005 of 2020


                    HC-KAR



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                             DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                               BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 2005 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI JAYARMA
                   S/O KALLAPPA
                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                   R/A NO.175, KHATHA NO.633
                   WARD NO.69, MOOKAMBIKA NILAYA
                   4TH B CROSS ROAD, PREETHINAGARA
                   LAGGERE, NEAR SUBHASCHANDRA
                   BOSE SCHOOL, BANGALORE - 560 058.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.)
                   AND:

                   1.   SMT. G S UMA
                        W/O G A SHANKAR MURTHY
                        AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

                   2.   SMT. SIREESHA RAJU
Digitally signed        D/O SHANKAR MURTHY
by NANDINI M            AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           3.   SRI G S RAVIKUMAR
KARNATAKA               S/O SHANKAR MURTHY
                        AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

                        RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ALL ARE
                        R/O NO.4, 1ST FLOOR
                        2ND CROSS, RAGHAVANAGARA
                        MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-3)
                       THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
                   ORDER PASSED BY XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE
                                 -2-
                                                NC: 2025:KHC:48480
                                              WP No. 2005 of 2020


HC-KAR



IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.2479/2017 DTD.24.1.2020 AS PER
ANNEXURE-J BY EXERCISING THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION BY
ALLOWING THE W.P.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                           ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set aside the order

dated 24.01.2020 passed by the Court of XXV Addl. City Civil

Judge, Bengaluru in Ex.P.No.2479/2017.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The respondents herein had filed O.S.No.3574/2001

before the Court of XXV Addl. Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru

seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property

bearing site No.27 formed in survey No.4 situated at Laggere

Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk measuring

30x40 feet. The said suit was decreed and as against the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574/2001 dated

22.06.2002, the petitioner herein had filed RFA No.1521/2012

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on

14.06.2017 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit

in respect of site No.34 on which he claimed right, title and

interest. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a fresh suit in

O.S.4507/2017 before the Court of LXVII Add. City Civil Judge,

Bengaluru. The respondents herein had filed

Ex.P.No.2479/2017 before the jurisdictional civil Court with a

prayer to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.3574/2001

which had attained finality. In the said proceedings, the

petitioner who is the judgment debtor had raised an objection

with regard to issue of delivery warrant on the ground that

O.S.No.4507/2017 is filed by the petitioner in respect of the

very same property as per the liberty granted by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521/2012. In the

meanwhile, delivery should not be issued in respect of suit

schedule property. The trial Court has rejected the objection

raised by the petitioner and had issued delivery warrant in

respect of suit schedule property in O.S.No.3574/2001 and

being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this

Court.

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated

the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in RFA No.1521/2012 has granted liberty to

the petitioner to file a fresh suit. Accordingly, a fresh suit in

O.S.No.4507/2017 is filed. The Division Bench of this Court in

RFA No.1693/2018 has recorded a finding that property bearing

site No.27 and 34 are one and the same and in view of such a

finding, the executing Court was not justified in issuing delivery

warrant in respect of the suit schedule property in

O.S.No.3574/2001.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/decree

holders submits that all along the petitioner had contended that

site No.27 and 34 are different properties. It is under the said

circumstance, liberty was granted to him to file a suit by this

Court while dismissing RFA No.1521/2012. The Division Bench

of this Court in RFA No.1693/2018 has not recorded a finding

that site No.27 and 34 are one and the same and by misleading

the trial Court as well this Court, execution has been stalled for

a period of more than five years by the petitioner. He

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

accordingly prays to dismiss the petition by imposing

exemplary cost on the petitioner for having misled the Court.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show

that, O.S.No.3574/2001 was filed by the respondents herein

seeking possession of site No.27 formed in survey No.4 of

Laggere Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk

totally measuring 30x40 feet. The said suit was decreed and

the petitioner herein was directed to handover possession of

suit schedule property in O.S.No.3574/2001. As against the

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3574/2001, the

petitioner had approached this Court in RFA No.1521/2012,

which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on

14.06.2017. Since the petitioner had contended before this

Court in RFA No.1521 of 2012 that he claims right in respect of

site No.34 formed in survey No.4 of Laggere Village,

Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, the Coordinate

Bench of this Court while dismissing RFA No.1521/2012 had

granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh suit in respect of

site No.34, which is all together a different site.

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

7. The petitioner thereafter mischievously had filed

O.S.No.4507/2017 before the jurisdictional civil Court,

Bengaluru in respect of site No.27 which was subject matter of

O.S.No.3574/2001. Perusal of description of two property

would go to show that suit schedule property in

O.S.No.4507/2017 is the very same property, which was

subject matter of O.S.No.3574/2001. The trial Court had

therefore rejected the plaint in O.S.No.4507/2017 on the

ground that the suit was hit by principle of res judicata, since

there was already a decree between the same party in respect

of very same property in O.S.No.3574/2017. The order passed

by the trial Court rejecting the plaint in exercise of its power

under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was questioned by the

petitioner before this Court in RFA No.1693/2018 which was

disposed of on 20.06.2019.

8. The Division Bench of this Court had allowed of RFA

No.1693/2018 having appreciated that plaint cannot be

rejected on the ground that it was hit by principle of res

judicata, as the said question, just as the question of limitation

is sometimes a mixed question of law and fact, which may

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

require not only examination of plaint, but also recording of

evidence.

9. A reading of judgment passed by the Division Bench

of this Court in RFA No.1693/2018 would go to show that,

nowhere this Court had recorded a finding that property

bearing site No.27 and site No.34 are one and the same. Such

a contention was put forward by the petitioner in RFA

No.1693/2018 and the same was recorded, but the Division

Bench had not recorded any finding on the same. On the other

hand, this Court in RFA No.1521/2012 has specifically observed

in the operative portion of its order that site No.27 and site

No.34 are two different properties and therefore liberty was

reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh suit in respect of site

No.34.

10. The petitioner on the strength of liberty granted by

this Court in RFA No.1521/2012, instead of filing a fresh suit in

respect of site No.34 had filed a fresh suit in respect of site

No.27 for which there was already a decree of possession

passed against him in O.S.No.3574/2001, which was

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

unsuccessfully challenged by him in RFA No.1521/2012. Having

played the aforesaid mischief, the petitioner has raised

objection before the executing Court in Ex.P.No.2479/2017 that

delivery warrant should not be issued in respect of property

which is subject matter of O.S.No.4507/2017. The trial Court

having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly

overruled the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner

has thereafter approached this Court in this writ petition and

this Court having noticed the mischief played by the petitioner

while issuing notice to the respondent had directed the

petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakhs before the registry of

this Court which was made subject to the result of writ petition

and an order of status quo was granted by this Court. It

appears that after this Court had granted an order of status

quo on 27.01.2020, the trial Court has recalled the order

impugned wherein delivery warrant in respect of suit schedule

property in O.S.No.3574/2012 was issued.

11. The petitioner has not only played mischief but also

has misled the Court and in spite of he suffering a decree in

O.S.No.3574/2001 which is confirmed in RFA No.1521/2012 on

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

14.06.2017, for the last more than 8 years he has been

dragging the proceedings before the executing Court on the

ground that he has filed O.S.No.4507/2017 in respect of the

very same property on the strength of liberty granted by this

Court in RFA No.1521/2012. It is relevant to note here that

liberty was granted in RFA No.1521/2012 to file a fresh suit in

respect of site No.34 which is totally a different. However, the

petitioner has filed suit in O.S.No.4507/2017 once again in

respect of site No.27 in respect of which there was a decree of

possession already operating against him. The conduct of

petitioner is therefore required to be deprecated and as rightly

contended by the learned counsel for the decree holders who

are made to run from pillar to post to execute the decree

passed in O.S.No.3574/2001, this writ petition is liable to be

dismissed with exemplary cost.

12. Accordingly, the following:-

ORDER

Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2

lakhs. The sum of Rs.1 lakh which is deposited

by the petitioner before this Court is directed to

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48480

HC-KAR

be released in favour of the decree holders after

collecting necessary documents from them in

support of their identity. Since the trial Court

has now recalled the order impugned after this

Court had granted an order of status quo while

issuing notice to the respondents on

27.01.2020, the trial Court shall pass fresh

orders regarding issuance of delivery warrant in

respect of suit schedule property in

O.S.No.3574/2001 as expeditiously as possible

but not later than a period of 15 days from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If

the petitioner fails to pay the balance cost, the

same shall be recovered as arrears of land

revenue.