Karnataka High Court
M. Raju Alias Y. M. Muniswamy vs Smt. Papamma Uruf Muniyamma on 18 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
WP No. 20860 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20860 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M. RAJU ALIAS Y. M. MUNISWAMY
S/O LATE MALLESHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SY.NO.34,
18TH MAIN ROAD,
GOVINAYAKANAHALLY,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.MAHANTESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SMT. PAPAMMA URUF MUNIYAMMA
signed by
NAGAVENI W/O SRI EERASANDRAPPA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
High Court
of Karnataka RESIDING AT NOS.2413 AND 2415
IN SURVEY NO.34, 18TH MAIN ROAD,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
THE THEN GOVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
ACTUALLY RESIDING AT:
SURVEY NO.34, 18TH MAIN ROAD,
KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT 2ND STAGE,
THE THEN GOVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
WP No. 20860 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 078.
2. VENKATARAJU
S/O SRI C.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NO.988, VENKOBARAO LANE,
NAGARTHARPET,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVIKUMAR V.G., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.
QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 03.06.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.
2(OBJECTOR APPLICATION) REJECTING THE SAME IN
EXECUTION CASE NO.1141/2014, BY THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-8), BANGALORE AND REOPEN I A
NO.2, PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AND
CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 TO 101
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ANNEXURE A); (B) QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2025 ISSUING DELIVERY WARRANT
WITH POLICE ASSISTANCE AND PERMISSION TO BREAK OPEN
THE LOCK IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN
EXECUTION CASE NO.1141/2014, PASSED BY THE XI ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-8), BANGALORE.
(ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
WP No. 20860 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an
order of the Executing Court which directs issuance of delivery
warrant with police assistance, to break open the lock in
respect of the schedule property in Execution Case 1141 of
2014.
2. Heard Sri M G Mahantesh, learned counsel appearing
for petitioner and Sri H C Shivaramu, learned counsel for
respondents 1 and 2.
3. The history of the issue dates back to 1993, when the
petitioner and two others institute a suit in OS No. 3113/1993
seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The suit comes
to be dismissed in terms of an order of the concerned Court
dated 27-01-2014, the dismissal of which is challenged by the
present petitioner and another before this Court in RFA
No.802/2014. The first appellant therein is the present
petitioner. The Regular First Appeal comes to be rejected. The
rejection of which is questioned by this very petitioner before
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
HC-KAR
the Apex Court in SLP 4751 of 2024, only to be rejected.
Therefore, the finding rendered by the concerned Court in OS
3113 of 1993 gets an imprimatur from the hands of the Apex
Court by rejection of the SLP. The findings rendered therein
have thus become final, as they were affirmed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in RFA 802/2014.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits
that a review is pending before the Apex Court seeking review
of the order rejecting the aforesaid SLP. Be that as it may. The
issue now is, as observed hereinabove, the 2nd
respondent/decree holder now seek to execute the decree by
issuance of a delivery warrant. The concerned Court passes an
order of issuance of delivery warrant that is now challenged.
5. The application filed by the petitioner/father comes to
be rejected for its non prosecution on the observations made
therein. The observations are:
"Learned Counsel for Objector files I.A. No. 3 under
Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC stating that, the RFA No.802/2014
filed by the Objector was reserved for judgment.
Advocate for DHr submitted that, assigning one or
other reasons, the Objector took time for all these days.
Since, there is no any stay against the, judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
HC-KAR
decree passed in the corresponding suit, there is no
impediment to pass order on I.A. No. 2.
It is forthcoming that, RFA No.802/2014 was filed
by the Objector herein against some third party
challenging the judgment and decree passed in
Ο.S.3113/1993 on the file of III Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, (CCH-25), Bengaluru. As such, no
justification in granting further time.
One more thing for consideration is that, inspite of
repeated opportunities, the Learned Counsel for Objector
did not come forward to address his arguments on I.A.
No. 2. Today, the matter is reserved to hear the
arguments of Learned Counsel for DHr. As such, I.A. No.
3 is not sustainable, hence, rejected.
Accordingly, heard the arguments of Learned
Counsel for DHr.
For orders on I.A. No. 2, call on 03-06-2023.
Sd/-
(12-04-2023)
XI Addl. C. C.& S. Judge,
Bengaluru, (CCH-8)"
The petitioner was the plaintiff and the suit filed by him comes
to be dismissed. The plaintiff who had lost the suit, the appeal
and the special leave petition before the Apex Court, is now
wanting to stall the execution proceedings. On that basis, the
Concerned Court has rejected the application filed by the father
under Order XXI Rule 97. With the history of the case being
thus, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of RAHUL SHAH v. JINENDRA KUMAR GANDHI reported in
NC: 2025:KHC:37470
HC-KAR
(2021) 6 SCC 418, the order of the concerned Court does not
warrant interference, in the peculiar circumstances. Though it is
rejected for its non prosecution, it ought to have met its
dismissal on its merit as well.
Petition stands dismissed. Interim order, of any kind
operating shall stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
