[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Chief Executive Officer vs Smt Vijaya W/O Suresh Magadum on 4 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1607
WP No. 100812 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.100812 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. VIJAYA W/O. SURESH MAGADUM,
AGE. MAJOR,
R/O. NIPPANI, CHIKODI TALUK,
PRESENTLY NIPPANI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591237.
2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591102.
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENTS
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO B. TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 21.01.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN E.P.NO.24/2025 ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
CONSEQUENTLY, C. ALLOW THE APPLICATION BEARING I.A.NO.II,
VIDE ANNEXURE-G FILED BY THE PETITIONER/JDR NO.2 UNDER O-21,
R-26 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN E.P.NO.24/2025 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL, AND D. TO GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1607
WP No. 100812 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.2 in EP
No.24/2025, dated 21.01.2026 by the Senior Civil Judge,
Bailhongal, the judgment debtor is before this Court.
2. The petitioner/judgment debtor had filed IA No.2
under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to
stay the execution proceedings till disposal of the Miscellaneous
Appeal No.56/2025 pending on the file of the I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which is filed challenging the
judgment and award passed in LAC No.49/2009 dated
22.10.2024. The said application came to be dismissed by order
impugned, whereby the Court had observed that in the present
case, the appeal is filed with a delay of 342 days and the
appellate Court has only issued notice on the application for
condonation of delay and on the stay application. No interim
order staying the execution has been granted. Therefore, the
decree holder's right to proceed with execution remains
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1607
HC-KAR
unaffected. The contention of the judgment debtor that the
execution should be stayed to avoid hardship, cannot be
accepted in the absence of a statutory provision or an order of
stay from the competent appellate Court. The Executing Court
cannot sit in an appeal over the decree nor can it grant a stay,
when the appeal is already filed and is pending consideration.
The Court had considered the judgment of the Kerala High Court
in Syamala Vs. Thapodhanan reported in 2020 SCC Online
Ker 8401. Accordingly, the Court had dismissed the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/judgment debtor submits that the petitioner has filed
the appeal against the judgment and award with a delay of 342
days. The Court had ordered notice and IA seeking stay is
pending consideration. It is submitted that under Order XXI Rule
26 of CPC, if a reasonable cause is shown, the Executing Court
has got the power to stay the execution. It is submitted that the
Executing Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in
it. Unless and until the stay is granted by the Court, it would
cause lot of hardship to the petitioner's judgment.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused the material on record. When a judgment and award
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1607
HC-KAR
was passed in LAC No.49/2009 dated 22.10.2024, the judgment
debtor, who is a beneficiary in the land acquisition proceedings,
immediately ought to have preferred an appeal. For the reasons
best known to them, an appeal is filed with the delay of 342
days. The Court had rightly issued notice and IA for stay is
pending. The submission of the learned counsel that under Order
XXI Rule 26 of CPC, if the reasonable cause is shown, the Court
can stay the execution proceedings. This cannot be termed as
reasonable cause.
5. When the party as per the framework under the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, has to prefer an appeal against an
order, which is aggrieved and before the appellate Court, there is
a provision to seek stay of further proceedings. The petitioner,
who could not be successful before the appellate Court, because
of delay, now cannot insist the Executing Court to stay the
proceedings till the appeal is decided by the appellate Court. The
Executing Court had rightly discussed and rightly observed that it
cannot grant stay, unless and until an order is passed in the
appeal. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere.
Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1607
HC-KAR
ORDER
i) The writ petition is dismissed.
ii) All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
JTR
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
