IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 17552 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

HARIJANA SANNA.

H.S. BORAMMA.

BOTH ARE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1. SMT. H.S.PARVATHY, W/O PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT CHERAMBANE VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571247.

2. SMT. H.S.JAYAMMA @ SUMA, Digitally signed W/O PREM, by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT OF R/AT VIJAYA BANK, BALELE VILLAGE, KARNATAKA VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218. 3. SMT. H.S.MUNIYAMMA, W/O SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. KUPPUNDA S. APPAIAH @ VITTALA, S/O LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.

2. SRI. GUDDANDA K. BJEEMAIAH, S/O LATE CARIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJESH P.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 - SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2021 IN EXECUTION CASE NO.2/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 11 READ WITH RULE 32 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS PRAYED FOR.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

14.09.2021 passed in Execution Case No.2/2015 by the Principal Civil Judge, Virajpet (for short ‘Executing Court’). 2. Sri B.S. Sachin, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, which was dismissed and the Appellate Court in R.A.No.32/2006 decreed the suit, which was confirmed in R.S.A.No.2138/2008. It is submitted that the petitioner filed execution petition in Ex.Case No.2/2015 seeking specific prayer that the judgment-debtors have not obeyed the Court order and caused mischief and obstruction, which has to be removed and direction has to be given to the judgment- debtors to comply the judgment. The Executing Court under the impugned order closed the execution petition by recording an incorrect finding that the petitioner has failed to approach the police authorities indicating the obstruction and further finding that the petitioner has to file a suit for recovery of possession. It is submitted that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the judgment and decree by the competent Court, there is a clear presumption that the said decree is passed by considering the lawful possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and in violation of the same, if the judgment-debtors obstruct the right of pathway, then the Executing Court is bound to exercise its power under Order 21 Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’). However, the Executing Court has failed to consider the said aspect and closed the execution petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of KAREPPA v. TAHASILDAR AND OTHERS reported in 2016 3 KCCR 2251 and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SANJU @ PAYAL AND ANOTHER v. KAMLESH AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 Supreme (P & H) 1554 and seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri Rajesh P.L., the learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the order of the Executing Court and submits that the judgment-debtors have clearly deposed in the execution proceedings that they have not encroached or causing any obstruction to the decree holder as contended. It is submitted that the Executing Court considering the evidence of R.W.1 and the documents at Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 i.e., sketch and R