The executing court is bound to act within the parameters of the decree established by prior judicial decisions.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the judgment debtor in Ex.C.No.69/2025 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru (for short “the Executing Court”), whereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing objections to the main execution petition was rejected by the Executing Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. The respondent / plaintiff - decree holder instituted a suit in O.S.No.455/2015 against the petitioner / defendant – judgment debtor for declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 26.08.2022 with cost of Rs.65,691/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on merits by the First Appellate Court in R.A.NO.13/2022 on 27.08.2024, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. So also, RSA No.1210/2024 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2024, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court including imposition of cost of Rs.65,691/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent, which had accordingly attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the petitioner. In the said RSA No.1210/2024, this Court held as under:

“This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the defendant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2024 in R.A.No.13/2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (hereinafter referred to as “The First Appellate Court”) confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2022 in O.S.No.455/2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, (hereinafter referred to as “The Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before Trial Court.

3. It is a case of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule property is belonged to one Mohandas Kamath, who died on 09.10.2009 leaving behind his siblings, namely Sri. Varadaraj Martappa Kamath and Smt.Radhika Ballary as his surviving legal heirs. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property as per registered deed of sale dated 02.09.2013 (Ex.P.7), from the brother and sister of deceased Mohandas Kamath and as such, the plaintiff has filed suit in O.S.No.455/2015 against the defendant, who was interfered with the suit schedule property based on a Will dated 12.06.2009 said to have been executed by the testator-Mohandas Kamath.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing the written statement, stating that the sale consideration has not been passed to the vendors of the plaintiff. The case of the defendant is that, late Mohandas Kamath has executed Will dated 12.06.2009 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant and the said Will was registered on 19.11.2013 and therefore the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings on record, the Trial Court has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and produced 16 documents and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Defendant has examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2 and marked 21 documents and the same were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.21.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record by judgment and decree dated 26.08.2022 decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff h