IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 10470 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. M N MANJE GOWDA S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/OF MARANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,.

KASABA HOBLI, HOLLNARSIPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573211 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANIKANTA H.B.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. MALLESHA S/O G REVANNA @ REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT HAVINAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, HALLIMYSURU HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573210 …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE RECORDS IN EXECUTION CASE NO.10 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLENARASIPURA ANDQUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2019 PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.10 OF 2018 BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLENARASIPURA, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 an order dated 16.11.2019. By the Impugned Order, arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor was directed by the Learned Execution Court.

2. None appears for the respondent/Judgment Debtor despite service.

3. Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that stay of proceeding was granted by the Court on 08.10.2020, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide this matter today.

4. The brief facts in the case are that a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the Decree Holder before the Trial Court was decreed on 21.06.2016. In pursuance of this decree execution proceedings were filed by the Decree Holder on 10.04.2018. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, an application came to be filed by the respondent under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC for seeking arrest and detention of the Judgment Debtor.

5. The evidence was led by both the Judgment Debtor and the Decree Holder and arguments were heard as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor submits that no separate application was filed. However, the execution petition was itself treated as the application.

Reliance is placed on the following extract-

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT H.N. PURA EX.CASE NO.10 OF 2018 Under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.............

Advocate for the Decree Holder Decree Holder

6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor contends that this is the only application that has been placed on record and this is in contravention with the provisions of Order XXI Rule No.11-A of the CPC. The learned counsel further seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhudev Mallick @ Bhudeb Mallick and Another vs Ranajit Ghoshal and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 360 to submit that unless an requisite affidavit is filed by the Judgment Debtor, the Court cannot proceed to pass a direction under this provision.

7. At this stage it is appropriate to set out Order XXI Rule 11-A and Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC, which reads as follows:

11A. Application for arrest to state grounds. Where an application is made for the arrest and detention in prison of the judgment-debtor, it shall state, or be accompanied by an affidavit stating, the grounds on which arrest is applied for.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

25. Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code reads thus:-

"32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction. (1) Where the party

against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an the decree may be enforced 1 [in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction] by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment o