IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 21749 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. VENKATESH S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 204 II STAGE, K.H. RANGANATHA COLONY BENGALURU - 560 026.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAIK N.R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. MAHADEVA S/O ORUGULAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 73 NANJAPPA AGRAHARA, 10TH CROSS, CHAMRAJAPET BENGALURU - 560 018.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DHARMESH A, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28.9.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN EXECUTION NO.20/2020 AND SAME IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ACCEPT THE MEMO DTD 03.03.2022 WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge order 28.09.2022 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Execution No.20/2020 (herein after referred to as "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the application under Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners/judgment debtor has been dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that, the petitioners and the respondent executed a memorandum of settlement on 27.11.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "MOU"). In view of mediated settlement between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the judgment debtors have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to the decree holder on or before 26.06.2020. The MOU also contained a clause that in the event of failure to make the payment within time, the judgment debtors would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the decree holder in respect of the suit schedule property. A decree was passed by the learned Trial Court on 28.09.2022 in terms of the mediated settlement.

3. Since the judgment debtors did not make the payment on time, the respondent/decree holder filed the execution petition. During the pendency of these execution proceedings, a memo was filed by the decree holder stating that the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand) has already been deposited, hence, the decree holders cannot seek for an enforcement of the execution of the same.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the payment in terms of the MOU had already been complied with and thus the execution could not have been allowed. He further submits that the payment was delayed in view of COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the payment has now been made. Thus, the application was filed objecting to the execution proceedings. It is contended that the amounts have already been deposited by way of DD with the Axis Bank, Bengaluru and the memo setting out the same has already been filed on 20.04.2022. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the application dated 20.04.2022 are set out below:

"2. I submit that the decree holder in the above case has filed the above execution petition praying for execution of the sale deed in respect of the schedule property or in the alternative directing the judgment debtors to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to him as per the decree. The decree holder has not compiled with the condition that he should deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- as per the decree and therefore his first prayer seeking for execution of the sale deed is forfeited and he is not eligible for the decree of specific performance.

3. I submit that as per the compromise entered between us before the mediation center, we have deposited the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- due to the decree holder as per the decree and same is deposited in the above case vide DD no.076840 dated 18-4-2022 drawn on Axis Bank, Cox-town branch, Bangalo