IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 482 OF 2021 (EX)

BETWEEN:

1. MS M D SOUMYA W/O LATE DHANU KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2. CHI KRIPAL KARUMABAIAH S/O LATE DHANUKUMAR AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER M D SOWMYA

3. MS M.C. VISHALAKSHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed 4. MS M.C. VEENAKSHI by SHARADAVANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS B Location: High Court of

5. MS M.C. PARVATHI Karnataka AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

6. MS M.C. REVATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7. MS M.C. ASHWINI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

8. MS M.C. ANITHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

9. MS M.C. JAJI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE CHENGAPPA AND ALL ARE R/AT KADANGAMAROOR VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPETNAD SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. K.P. GANGAMMA W/O K.K. POONACHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NEW HOPE CHIKPET VIRAJPET TOWN SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEVAIAH I.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2021 PASSED IN EX No.32/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 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

1. Heard Sri. Vijaykumar for Sri. S.R. Sreeprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. I.S. Devaiah, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is filed by the decree holder who sought execution of the decree in O.S.

No.183/1977.

3. To execute the decree when the execution petition came to be filed, Decree Holder filed an application under Order XXI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer of directing the judgment debtor to remove the obstruction.

4. Said application was opposed and learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraphs No.9 to 11 as under;

9. The Decree holder has produced the certified copy of the Judgment of O.S.No. 183/1977. On perusal of the said Judgment it shows that, the Decree holders have filed the above said Original suit for seeking declaration of right of way, mandatory and perpetual injunction and eviction against the defendant. The Addl. Civil Judge had pronounced the Judgment on 5.3.1983, wherein the learned Civil Judge was observed that, there is 5 feet path way in the Sy.No. 253/1. The plaintiffs have right to use the said path way as right of way and defendant was directed to remove the obstruction existing to the said 5 feet pathway. Under the above said Original suit the Decree holder has not only got permanent injunction against the defendants and there is a finding that the defendant has made obstruction to the said 5 feet pathway. Hence, the defendant is entitled to remove the said obstruction to the above said 5 feet pathway. As per the gist of the Judgment the defendant has failed to remove the said obstruction the plaintiffs/Decree holders has right to remove the said obstruction in accordance with law for vacating said obstruction the plaintiff/Decree holder have filed this execution petition after laps of 26 years. The defendant/Judgment debtor has taken contention that, this execution petition is barred by limitation. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. Article

136 of Limitation Act is reads as under: 136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or other of any Civil Court.

10. There is only 12 years period of limitation for filing Execution petition when the Decree holder has obtained mandatory injunction against the Judgment debtor. The Decree holders have obtained permanent injunction and mandatory injunction under the above said Judgment. The Decree holder has not filed this execution petition within prescribed period of 12 years for execution of decree. The counsel for Judg