IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 214 OF 2020 (EX)

BETWEEN:

SRI M PADMANABAIAH,

S/O H. MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

R/AT No. 145, NEAR GOVT. SCHOOL,

AMRUTHAHALLI,

BANGALORE-560 092.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. RADHIKA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. N THIMMEGOWDA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI KRISHNAPPA,

FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN

TO THE PETITIONER,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 2^ND CROSS

Digitally

signed by 1^ST MAIN, GORAGUNTAPALYA,

MALAT ESH NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,

K C BANGALORE-560 022.

Location: …RESPONDENT

HIGH (RESPONDENT-KRISHNAPPA SERVED THROUGH

COURT OF PAPER PUBLICATION)

KARNATAKA

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED IN EX.No.3174/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH No.16) DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER

21 RULE 32 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

Heard Smt. Radhika, learned counsel representing Sri N.

Thimmegowda, counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. Decree holder is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed in Execution Case No.3174/2014 rejecting the application filed under Article 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure by order dated 30.11.2019.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under.

3.1. A suit in OS No.1009/1992 came to be filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant - Sri Krishnappa. In the cause title, it was noted that father's name of said Krishnappa is not known to the plaintiff and his address was shown that he was care of Mangappa, who was residing near Venkateshwara Temple, Goraguntepalya, Yaswanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru-22.

4. Suit on contest came to be decreed.

5. There is a clear finding recorded by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial Court, wherein it has been specifically stated that the father name of the defendant is Gopalappa, whereas the deposition of Krishnappa shown that his father’s name is Dodda Gopalappa.

6. Learned trial Judge has also noted that nowhere in the plaint it is made clear that Gopalappa referred to by the plaintiff is in respect of the Court proceedings Gopalappa are one and the same person.

7. As could be seen from the address that has been furnished in the execution proceedings, father name of the judgment debtor is not shown even in the execution proceedings and said Krishnappa is shown as aged 67 years. Insofar as his residential address is concerned, it has been stated that he is care of Mangappa who is residing at No.18, 2^nd cross, 1^st Main, Goraguntepalya, near Venkateshwara Temple, Bengaluru 22.

8. The learned trial Judge has recorded the evidence of the decree holder before passing the impugned order and noted that the judgment debtor Krishnappa did not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff or violated the decree and recorded a categorical finding vide paragraphs 13 and 14 and dismissed the application.

9. For ready reference, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order culled out hereunder for ready reference:

+“13. And moreover on careful perusal of the said complaint copy of Ex.P4 one can make out that the DHr has filed the alleged complaint against one Krishnappa S/o Gopalappa and whereas the judgment and decree of Ex.P1 & P2 and so also the present execution petition clearly shows that the said Krishnappa S/o Gopalappa is not at all the JDr of the present petition, but one Krishnappa, [father's name not known] is the JDr of the present petition and since in a ruling of 1992(2) SCC 504 it has been clearly held that “Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC is applicable to a party against whom a decree for injunction had been passed” then the present petition against the JDr cannot be brought under the grip of Order