Karnataka High Court
D Ishwara Bhat vs Vadiraja Achari on 4 November, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
CRP No. 211 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.211 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. D ISHWARA BHAT
S/O LATE D KRISHNA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. SUPREETHA I BHAT
D/O D ISHWARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
3. SUCHETHA I BHAT
D/O D ISHWARA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
"CHITHAARA",
KADRI ROCKS ROAD, KADRI,
MANGALURU - 575 002
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by
MALATESH (BY SRI VISHWAJITH RAI M, ADVOCATE)
KC AND:
Location:
HIGH VADIRAJA ACHARI
COURT OF S/O LATE KANTHAPPA ACHARI
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O D NO.6-33, KAINTHILA
VITTAL KASABA
BANTWAL TALUK -574 243 (DK)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SAMEER S N, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
CRP No. 211 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 02.06.2021 PASSED IN EXE.CASE No.9/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 32(1) AND (5) R/W SECTION
151 OF CPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vishwajith Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Sameer S.N., learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. Decree Holder in Execution Case No.9/2016 is the
revision petitioner challenging the dismissal of the application
filed by him under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) R/W Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The decree holder alleged that there is a willful
disobedience on the part of the judgment debtor and therefore
action was sought.
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
HC-KAR
4. Learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the
decree holder has noted that there was no willful disobedience
on the part of the judgment debtor.
5. No doubt, judgment debtor did not enter the witness box
to substantiate that there was no disobedience. But, since it is
the decree holder who is required to establish before the Court
that there was willful disobedience of the decree, question of
taking advantage of non-examination of the judgment debtor
would not arise.
6. Learned Trial Judge after taking note of the relevant
material evidence on record dismissed the application filed
under Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (5) r/w Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure holding at paragraphs 14 to 16 as
under:
"14. But in the present petition the decree holder has
produced Ex.P3, Ex.P16, P20, P21 Photographs, First
Information dated 19.06.2016 and the oral allegations,
the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove
that, the respondent has willfully disobeyed the order of
this court by removing the gate put to petition schedule
property. Further, on perusal of Ex.P-18 first information
report dated 25.08.2016 discloses that, the allegation of
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
HC-KAR
petitioner No.1 is the respondent has constructed
temporary shed in the petition schedule property and
thereby disobeyed the decree of this court. But neither in
the petition nor in the evidence the said fact has been
mentioned. If at all the respondent have constructed shed
in the petition schedule property it would have been
mentioned in the petition. Hence, it can be inferred that,
the said allegations are baseless.
15. Further, as per Order XXI Rule 32(1) of CPC where the
party against whom a decree for the specific performance
of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an
injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of
obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the
decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his
property or, in the case of a decree for the specific
performance of a contract, or for an injunction by his
detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his
property, or by both. Thus, it is clear that, to enforce the
decree of injunction, there must be willful disobedience.
For the purpose of Rule 32(1) the Decree Holder has to
satisfy the court that there is willful disobedience of the
decree by Judgment Debtor. Such disobedience must be
deliberate and willful and such disobedience must be a
conscious attempt of Judgment Debtor to ignore the
decree. In a decision of Caper Travel Company Pvt
LTD., Vs Rohith Srivasthav reported 2019 SCC
Online Del 10040 wherein Supreme Court has observed
that, mere violation of decree for injunction had not been
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
HC-KAR
made executable and a decree for injunction was made
executable only on proof, also of the fact that, judgment
debtor had an opportunity of obeying the decree and the
disobedience is willful. Both the said ingredients required
and element of mens rea to be established before the
court before detention in civil prison or attachment of
property would be ordered.
16. But in the present case as per Ex.P-10 the Judgment
Debtor has already vacated the house situated in the
petition schedule property through Court process in Ex.
No.7/2016. The documents produced by the decree holder
are not sufficient to prove the fact of willful disobedience
of Judgment debtors. No doubt the judgment debtor has
not entered the witness box to put forth their defense.
However, the decree holders have to prove their case on
their stand. Moreover, in the execution of decree of
injunction, the only punishment which the court can
impose is put the judgment debtors in civil prison. Under
such circumstances the decree holder has to satisfy the
court with co-gent and convincing evidences that the
judgment debtors have willfully disobeyed the orders of
this court. Further, in one of the photograph of -the
erected gate, the name of the petitioner no.1 is
mentioned. But in some of the photographs of the erected
gate and the gates which have falling down, the name of
the petitioner No.1 is not forthcoming. Under such
circumstances without the other corroborating evidences,
this court cannot opined that, both the erected gates and
which have been fallen down are one and the same. Thus,
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
HC-KAR
only on the basis of photographs and F.I.R it cannot be
inferred that, the respondents have removed the gate put
to petition schedule property. Accordingly, I hold Point
No.1 in the Negative."
7. Correctness of the said Order is assailed in the present
revision petition.
8. Sri Vishwajith Rai, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition,
contented that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is
contrary to the material on record. Therefore sought for
allowing the revision petition.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri
Sameer, supports the impugned order.
10. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal, it is crystal clear that there is no
material on record to show that there was willful disobedience
of the decree.
NC: 2025:KHC:44467
HC-KAR
12. When there is no disobedience established by the decree
holder, dismissal of the application filed under Order XXI Rule
32(1) and (5) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
just and proper.
13. Accordingly, the same needs no interference in this
revision petition.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
