IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 6940 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. B. RAMACHANDRAPPA, S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN), 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O B. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE.

BOTH ARE R/O P. B. ROAD, NEAR CHURCH, HARIHAR TOWN, HAIRHARA -577601.

Digitally signed …PETITIONERS by VALLI MARIMUTHU (BY SRI G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

Location: H IGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA

1. S. THIPPANNA, S/O SINGADI SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BUSINESS PERSON, R/O NEW BHARAMPURA, DODDIBEEDI, HARIHAR TOWN -577 601.

2. K. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE, HARIHARA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HARLAPURA EXTENSION, HARIHARA TOWN-577 601.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SMT. SHOBHA S. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2021 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-N AND TO RESTORE THE EXECUTION PETITION No.16/2017 FOR CONSIDERATION OF IA No.1 DATE 29.9.2018 FILED BY THE JDRs/PETITIONERS (WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HARIHARA.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Smt. Shobha S. Banakar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed by the judgment debtors in O.S. No.116/2013, decided on 27.01.2017, assailing the order dated 16.12.2021 passed in Ex.P. No.16/2017 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harihar (for short 'Trial Court').

3. Respondent No.1 herein had instituted O.S.

No.116/2013 seeking specific performance of a contract. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 27.01.2017, decreed the suit directing the petitioner/defendants to refund the advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum. In the alternative, if the defendants failed to make such payment, the plaintiff was granted liberty to have the sale deed executed by depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,43,000/-.

3.1 Under the judgment referred to above, the refund of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be made within six months from the date of the order. As the said direction was not complied with, respondent No.1 instituted Execution Petition No.16/2017. In the said proceedings, the petitioners filed an application on 29.09.2018 seeking permission to deposit decreetal amount after expiry of time granted, which came to be rejected on 17.01.2020. Thereafter, the Executing Court, through the Court Commissioner executed the sale deed in favour of the decree-holder and possession of the schedule property had been delivered, closed the execution proceedings.

3.2 Challenging the said order, the present petition is filed primarily on the ground that the Execution Court failed to consider the petitioners’ application seeking permission to deposit the refund of advance sale consideration before proceeding to close the execution proceedings.

4. There is no representation for the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has remained absent on the earlier dates of hearing.

6. Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1–decree holder, submits that the decree directed the petitioner/defendants to refund the advance sale consideration with interest at 18% per annum within six months. In the alternative, if the defendant failed to refund the said amount within the stipulated period, the decree holder /respondent No.1 was granted liberty to have the sale deed executed and registered by paying the balance sale consideration through due process of law.

6.1 The learned counsel further submits that as the first direction to refund the amount was not complied with, respondent No.1 deposited the balance sale consideration before the Court,