IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1589 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE K. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. N. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SMT. RANJITHA D/O LATE K. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT 4^TH SHOP LANE, TATA SILK FARM, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK S.REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ANIL KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by CHANDANA B M SRI R RAVIKUMAR Location: S/O K.M. RAMA REDDY, High Court of AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Karnataka R/AT NO. 18, 7^TH CROSS, 30^TH MAIN ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS AND GRANT THEM THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 14.01.2026 IN E.P.NO. 2474/2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 41)

BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the Judgment Debtors in Ex.No.2474/2022 on the file of 40^th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 14.01.2026, whereby the Executing Court directed issuance of commissioner warrant in favour of the respondent - Decree Holder.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while according to the petitioners-Judgment debtors, the draft sale deed which was said to have been filed in the Court on 14.02.2025 was not furnished to the petitioners-JDRs as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.336/2024 dated 11.03.2024. The respondent-Decree Holder would contend that he had actually furnished the said draft sale deed to the petitioners- JDRs in compliance with the directions of this Court. In the earlier round of litigation in the aforesaid W.P.No.336/2024, the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-

“ This petition is directed against the impugned Order dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.P.No.2474/2022 by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-41), Bengaluru, whereby, allowing the application I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent/decree holder seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to execute the sale deed, so also, the Order dated 18.12.2023 issuing Commissioner warrant by the Executing Court.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent/ decree holder instituted the instant execution proceedings to implement and enforce the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.586/2015, whereby, the Trial Court directed the petitioners/ judgment debtors to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/decree holder.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners/ judgment debtors that respondent/decree holder had not furnished the draft sale deed before the Executing Court as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the Trial Court having not followed the procedure contemplated under the said provisions, the impugned Order suffers from procedural illegality and patent infirmity warranting interference in the present petition, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajbir vs. Suraj Bhan & anr passed in Civil Appeal No.1700/2022 dated

28.02.2022.

4. It is therefore submitted that the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set-aside and respondent/ decree holder as well as Executing Court be directed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/

decree holder submits that in