IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 104782 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

KALLAPPA S/O BASAPARAPPA HANAGANDI,

AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. WEAVER,

R/O. HUNNUR-587 301,

TAL. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. KASAWWA W/O MALLAPPA HUNKI,

AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

R/O. HUNNUR-587 301,

TAL. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

2. MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNNUIR,

BY ITS SECRETARY, MANDAL PANCHAYATH,

HUNNUR-587 301, TAL. JAMKHANDI,

DIST. BAGALKOT.

Digitally signed by

C LA H X A M N A D N RASHEKAR 3. PRADHAN MANDAL PANCHAYATH,

KATTIMANI

Location: HIGH HUNNUR-587 301,

C KA O R U N R A T T O A F

KA TAL. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

DHARWAD BENCH

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25-10-2022, PASSED ON I.A. NO.1, PASSED IN EX.P.NO.56/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, AT. JAMKHANDI, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR

ORDER AND ETC.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and to learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed against the order 25.10.2022 passed on I.A. No.1 in Ex.P. No.56/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Jamkhandi dismissing the execution petition as time barred.

3. The execution petition is filed on 25.11.2021 to execute a decree for declaration of injunction which has attained finality on 18.01.2008.

4. The trial Court has rejected the execution petition on the premise that the petition is filed beyond 12 years from the date of the decree.

5. It is relevant to notice that the decree holder had filed an application for condonation of the delay and that was condoned. However what is required to be noticed is that such an application is not maintainable. It is also required to be noticed that the decree is for declaration and injunction and what is sought to be executed is the violation of the decree for injunction.

6. For a decree for injunction, there is no limitation to file execution as the cause of action is recurring. Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:

“136. For the execution of any decree (other than a decree granting a mandatory injunction) or order of any Civil Court. Twelve years – When the decree or order becomes enforceable or where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, when default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which execution is sought, takes place:

Provided that an application for the enforcement or execution of a decree granting a perpetual injunction shall not be subject to any period of limitation.”

7. As can be noticed from the aforementioned provision, there is no limitation to execute a decree for injunction. Though the decree which is sought to be executed is a decree for declaration and injunction, what is sought to be pressed into service is the violation of decree for permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the respondents/judgment debtors.

8. Thus, the Trial Court is not justified in rejecting the petition on the premise that the petition is time-barred. Under these circumstances, the Court passed the following:-

ORDER

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order 25.10.2022 passed on I.A. No.1 in Ex.P. No.56/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Jamkhandi is set aside.

(iii) The Executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution proceeding as contemplated in law.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 97