2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39844
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
SRI P SATHISH PAI – Appellant
Versus
T V LAKSHMIKANTH – Respondent
WP 12598/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 12598 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI P SATHISH PAI S/O LATE P.NARASIMHAPLAI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OFFICE AT NO.10/1 LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052.
2. SRI M.S. MAHADEVAIH S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.59, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.R. ANANTHAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. T.V. LAKSHMIKANTH NANDINI M S S/O LATE G.R. VENKATESH Location:
HINDU, MAJOR HIGH COURT OF PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.160 KARNATAKA 7TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 4TH BLOCK BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 079.
2. SRI MOHAMMED ISMAIL S/O LATE SRI NANNESAHEB MUSLIM, MAJOR.
3. SMT. JAINA BEE MUSLIM, MAJOR.
4. SRI Y.M. SHAFIULLA MUSLIM, MAJOR.
5. SRI MOHAMMED RAHMATHULLA MUSLIM, MAJOR.
6. SMT. SHEDDA BEGUM MUSLIM, MAJOR.
7. SRI MOHAMMED MIZRA MUSLIM MUSLIM, MAJOR.
8. SRI Y.T. MOHAMMEDIYAZ MUSLIM, MAJOR.
9. SRI FAIZ AHMED MUSLIM, MAJOR.
RESOPONDENT Nos.2 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT NO.15, MASJID ROAD, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560 024 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
10. SRI D. RAMA RAO S/O G. DURGESHAIAH HINDU, MAJOR R/AT NO.958, 7TH MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE - 560010.
11. M/S BANGALORE CITY CHICKPET HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT K.V.TEMPLE STREET BANGALORE - 560 010.
12. M/S BANGALORE CITY CHICKPET HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT K.V.TEMPLE STREET BANGALORE - 560 053 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.L.S.VENKATESH.
13. M/S VINIVINC PROPERTIES REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPFIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER G.LOKESH, NO.53-58, 4TH FLOOR
14. SRI.CHAHRAVATHI COMPLEX SAJJANRAO CIRCLE, V.V.PURAM BANGALORE - 560 004.
14. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY REVENUE SECRETARY M.S. BULDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.T. PARAMESHWARAPPA, ADV., FOR R-11 & R-12- ABSENT;
V/O DT: 23.01.2024 NOTICE TO R-10;
V/O DT: 16.04.2024, NOTICE TO R-1 TO R-9, R-13 ARE H/S;
SMT. A. MARIA SHARMITA, ADV., FOR SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADV., FOR R-14)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2016 PASSED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEX-G PASSE DIN EX.NO.25176/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.17297/2004 PENDING BEFORE THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU.POST THIS W.P. FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE SINGLE JUDGE.DT01.04.2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the decree holders in O.S.No.17297/2004 with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.02.2016 passed on the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to amend the petition and the schedule in Execution No.25176/2007 pending before the Court of XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benglauru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.14. Respondents Nos.1 to 13, who are served in the matter have remained unrepresented before this Court.
3. Petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.17297/2004 before the jurisdictional Civil Court for a judgment and decree of specific performance and the said suit was decreed as against respondent nos.1 to 13 herein on 16.04.2007. The said judgment and decree has attained finality. Execution Case No.25176/2007 was filed by the decree-holders before the Trial Court to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.17297/2004 and in the said execution petition, application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sections 151 & 153 of CPC was filed with a prayer to amend the execution petition and Schedule 'A' & 'B' of the execution petition. The said application was rejected by the Executing Court vide the order impugned and being aggrieved