[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri R Ravikumar on 13 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
WP No. 1589 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1589 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE K. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
2. N. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE K. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3. SMT. RANJITHA
D/O LATE K. NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL RESIDING AT 4TH SHOP LANE,
TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK S.REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR
SRI. ANIL KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
CHANDANA
BM SRI R RAVIKUMAR
Location: S/O K.M. RAMA REDDY,
High Court of AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
Karnataka
R/AT NO. 18, 7TH CROSS,
30TH MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE
OF THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT THEM THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 14.01.2026 IN E.P.NO. 2474/2022 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 41)
BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
WP No. 1589 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the Judgment Debtors in Ex.No.2474/2022
on the file of 40th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is
directed against the impugned order dated 14.01.2026, whereby
the Executing Court directed issuance of commissioner warrant in
favour of the respondent - Decree Holder.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while
according to the petitioners-Judgment debtors, the draft sale deed
which was said to have been filed in the Court on 14.02.2025 was
not furnished to the petitioners-JDRs as directed by this Court in
the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.336/2024 dated
11.03.2024. The respondent-Decree Holder would contend that he
had actually furnished the said draft sale deed to the petitioners-
JDRs in compliance with the directions of this Court. In the earlier
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
HC-KAR
round of litigation in the aforesaid W.P.No.336/2024, the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
" This petition is directed against the impugned Order
dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.2474/2022 by the XL
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-41),
Bengaluru, whereby, allowing the application I.A.No.2 filed
by the respondent/decree holder seeking appointment of
Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed, so also, the
Order dated 18.12.2023 issuing Commissioner warrant by
the Executing Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that respondent/ decree holder instituted the instant
execution proceedings to implement and enforce the
judgment and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed in
O.S.No.586/2015, whereby, the Trial Court directed the
petitioners/ judgment debtors to execute the sale deed in
favour of the respondent/decree holder.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioners/ judgment
debtors that respondent/decree holder had not furnished the
draft sale deed before the Executing Court as contemplated
under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
as such the Trial Court having not followed the procedure
contemplated under the said provisions, the impugned Order
suffers from procedural illegality and patent infirmity
warranting interference in the present petition, as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs. Suraj Bhan &
anr passed in Civil Appeal No.1700/2022 dated
28.02.2022.
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
HC-KAR
4. It is therefore submitted that the impugned
Order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set-aside
and respondent/ decree holder as well as Executing Court
be directed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed
under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/
decree holder submits that in the execution proceedings
which presently stands posted on 27th March 2024, the
respondent/ decree holder would furnish the draft sale deed
before the Trial Court, who may be directed to follow the
prescribed procedure and proceed further in accordance with
law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and the undisputed fact that
respondent/decree holder had not furnished the draft sale
deed before the Executing Court as required under Order
XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
Trial Court deserves to be set-aside and the matter remitted
to the Executing Court, by issuing certain directions.
7. According, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order dated 12.12.2023 passed
in E.P.No.2474/2022 by the XL Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge (CCH-41), Bengaluru, and the
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
HC-KAR
Order dated 18.12.2023 issuing Commissioner
warrant by the Executing Court are hereby set-aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Executing Court
for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent/
decree holder to furnish the draft sale deed before the
Executing Court on the next date of hearing and also
serve a copy to the petitioners/judgment debtors, so as
to enable the Executing Court to proceed further in
accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of
the Code of Civil Procedure."
4. As can be seen from the directions issued by this Court,
the respondent - Decree holder was directed to furnish the draft
sale deed before the Executing court and also serve a copy on the
petitioners-JDRs. Under these circumstances, since there is an
ambiguity/discrepancy between the parties as to the actual
service/furnishing of the draft sale deed by the respondent - Decree
Holder in favour of the petitioners, in order to expedite the
proceedings which are now posted on 20.02.2026, without
expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival
contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the
impugned order and remit the matter back to the Executing Court
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
HC-KAR
for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain
directions.
5. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 14.01.2026 passed in
Ex.No.2474/2022 by the Executing court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The respondent - Decree holder shall furnish a copy of
the draft sale deed either the petitioners or their learned counsel on
20.02.2026 before the Executing Court.
(v) It is made clear that in the event the petitioners or their
learned counsel are not present and remain absent before the
Executing Court on 20.02.2026, liberty is reserved in favour of the
respondent - Decree holder to furnish a copy to the Executing
Court to enable the same to be delivered to the petitioners -
Judgment debtors.
(vi) Upon the respondent furnishing the draft sale deed to the
petitioners-JDRs as stated supra, the Executing Court shall provide
NC: 2026:KHC:9332
HC-KAR
an opportunity to both the parties and hear them and proceed
further in accordance with law and dispose of the Execution
proceedings within a period of two months from 20.02.2026.
(vii) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open
and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Srl.
