IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 479 OF 2016 (EX)

BETWEEN:

SRI. D. VENKATAIAH WRONGLY MENTIONED AS VENKATAPPA S/O LATE D.P. MALAKONDAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/A NO 421, 2^ND CROSS, VIVEKNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047 AND ALSO R/A SONNENAHALLI EXTENSION WARD NO 71, BANGALORE.

Digitally signed by SUMA B N PRESENTLY R/A NO 97 Location: HIGH 8^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, COURT OF NEW ANDHRA COLONY KARNATAKA VIVEKANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 047.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N AND SRI. MANJUNATHA K.V., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. SMT HOORNAZ BANU W/O MOHAMED YOOSUF AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO 5430, 1^ST FLOOR, 11^TH MAIN, VIVEKNAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047.

2. SMT VIJAYA KUMARI W/O DHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

3. RUPASHREE D/O DHAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE BOTH ARE R/A NO 1666 B TYPE III STAGE, B D A LAYOUT AUSTIN TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 047.

ALSO R/A NO 148, 2^ND MAIN, SONNENAHALLI FURTHER EXTENSION, VIVEKANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 047.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M MOHAN KUMAR AND E. VENKATARAMI REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DATED 21.10.2019 NOTICE TO R2 VIJAYA KUMARI AND R3-RUPASHREE ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED IN EX.P.NO.2612/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE EXECUTION PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Rajeshwara P.N, learned counsel for petitioner and none appears for the respondents.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder in Execution Case No.2612/2012, challenging the dismissal of the execution petition by order dated 01.09.2016.

3. Facts in the nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:

3.1 A suit was filed by the respondent in O.S.No.7721/2009 for the relief of permanent injunction inter- alia an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to be filed.

3.2 Learned Trial Judge who heard the application on merits, allowed the application in part.

3.3 Operative portion of the said order reads as under:

ORDER

'' IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code is hereby partly allowed.

I hereby direct both the parties to maintain status-quo pertaining to suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. ''

4. Later on the plaintiff being the master of the suit, withdrew the suit and sold the property in favour of third party.

5. Being aggrieved by the violation of the interim order and withdrawal of the suit, defendant in the said suit filed an execution petition which was numbered as Execution Case No. 2612/12 for the relief of violation of the status quo order and to punish the plaintiff.

6. In the meantime, defendant had also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.782/2012.

7. On contest said Miscellaneous case came to be dismissed. Further, defendant filed Miscellaneous First Appeal in M.F.A.No.7834/2016 against the said order which also came to be dismissal by this Court.

8. However defendant pursued with the execution case and the same was objected by the plaintiff.

9. Learned Trial Judge heard on the maintainability of the execution petition and by impugned order dated 01.09.2016 dismissed the execution petition as maintainable.

10. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision petition is filed on following and amongst other grounds.

11. Sri. Rajeshwara P.N, learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that learned Trial Judge missed the notice of the provision under the Code of Civil Procedure called out in Section 36 of the CPC, whereunder even interim order can be executed by filing an execution petition.

12. In support of his arguments, he has placed on rec