IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.758 OF 2025 (EX)

BETWEEN:

SMT JYOTHI SHERIGAR

W/O RAVISHANKAR SHERIGAR,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

RESIDING AT LALITH MAHAL,

PERADKA, MALA POST,

KARKALA TALUK AND UDUPI DISTRICT-574 113.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BANK OF INDIA

SALMARA, KARKALA BRANCH,

KARKALA TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT -574 104

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER /

Digitally

PRINCIPAL OFFICER.

signed by

…RESPONDENT

MALATESH

K C

(VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 SMT.SADHANA S. DESAI,

Location:

ADVOCATE)

HIGH

COURT OF THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL

KARNATAKA

PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2025 PASSED IN EX.CASE.24/2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, DECREE PASSED IS EXECUTABLE.

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 Jayakara Shetty H, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Sadhana Desai for the respondent.

2. Judgment Debtor in Execution Case No.24/2025 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order of the Executing Court dated 24.09.2025 overruling the objections as to the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground that decree is non-executable.

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

4. A suit for recovery of money was filed by the respondent/ bank against the petitioner herein in O.S No.42/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, Udupi, which came to be decreed by the judgment dated 01.07.2022.

5. There was no appeal filed by the defendant and thereby decree became final.

6. In order to execute the decree passed in the said suit, execution case came to be filed by the respondent/bank which is numbered as Execution Case No.24/2025 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala.

7. In the execution case, judgment debtor appeared and filed objections stating that decree is unenforceable as the decree is passed by the Civil Court whereas the decree should have been passed by the Commercial Court.

8. Said objection was overruled by the Learned Judge in the Executing Court by impugned order. Thereafter, Judgment Debtor is before this court in this revision petition.

9. Sri Jayakara Shetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contented that the Court at Karkala did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is a commercial transaction and it is only the Commercial Courts which were entitled to pass the necessary decree. Therefore, decree is a nullity.

10. Admittedly, the objection was not under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was filed as non-executable by filing an application.

11. The learned Trial Judge after taking note of the relevant aspects of the matter including the decision cited at the Bar on behalf of the judgment debtor, has held as under:

“This is an execution petition filed seeking recovery of Rs.15,05,495/- along with future interest. The notice was issued to the judgment debtor who appeared through the counsel and objects that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit and the decree could not be executable. The counsel for the judgment debtor files written arguments by stating that as per the Commercial Courts Act of 2015, an amount more than Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned, it is only the Commercial courts which has the jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute. That the alleged loan which was obtained in the above suit was for purchase of two buses, which was a commercial transaction. Further submits that the loan which is the subject matter of the above suit has covered under CGTMSC scheme of the government and the government is the security for the said loan and hence the decree holder is not entitled to recover the same. Further h