Dismissed¶66

Smt Sushila Sharma v. M/S Nlm Enterprises

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2025CRP/251/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution law — objection under S.47 r/w S.151 CPC to execution of a decree transferred from Srinagar (summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, File No.31A/M of 2007) before City Civil Court, Bengaluru (Ex.No.2545/2013) — judgment debtor alleged decree was nullity/fraudulently obtained for want of proper service — held: where the trial court followed Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC and decree followed by operation of law on failure to seek leave to defend, judgment debtor cannot claim the decree is fraudulent — CRP dismissed (High Court of Karnataka, V Srishananda J., 20.11.2025).

What did the court decide?

In a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC, if the defendant fails to appear and seek leave to defend as contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC, decree follows by operation of law ¶52

Smt Sushila Sharma Vs M/S Nlm Enterprises — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 251 OF 2017 (IO)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUSHILA SHARMA SINCE DIED, PETITIONER NO.2 IS THE LR OF THE 1^ST PETITIONER

¶10

SMT SUNITHA SHARMA W/O MR PRASANNA REDDY @ PURUSHOTHAM D/O. LATE SUSHILA SHARMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO.G-2, K. BLOCK GOLDEN ORCHID LAVELLE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P.N., ADVOCATE VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2024, P1 IS DEAD AND P2 IS THE LR OF P1)

¶15

AND:

¶16

M/S NLM ENTERPRISES (PROPRIETARY BUSINESS CONCERN) NO.1, KARAN NAGAR SRINAGAR THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR SANDEEP MAWA S/O MR ROSHAN LAL MAWA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/O KARAN NAGAR SRINAGAR - 190 010

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC 1908, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD: 03.04.2017 PASSED IN EX.NO.2545/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE., BENGALURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.47 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR DISMISSAL OF THE EXECUTION PETITION.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy. None appears for the respondents.

¶27

Judgment Debtor in Execution Case No.2545/2013 is the revision petitioner challenging dismissal of the application filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Facts of the case which are utmost necessary

¶32

for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶33

3.1 Respondent decree holder filed a suit under the provisions of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment debtor on the file of Principal District Judge, Srinagar in File No.31A/M of 2007.

¶34

3.2 Since the judgment debtor did not appear and file leave to defend as is contemplated under XXXVII Rule III 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decree came to be passed. There was a decree transfer proceedings initiated at Srinagar. Based on the same, the execution petition came to be filed before the City Civil Court, Bangalore in Execution Case No.2545/2013.

¶35

3.3 The Judgment debtor filed in application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stop the execution on the ground that decree is a nullity and obtained by fraudulent means.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

3.4 The same was objected to by the decree holder

¶40

and dismissed the execution proceedings.

¶41

3.5 Learned Judge in the Executing Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application by impugned order dated 03.04.2017.

¶42

Being aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor is before this Court.

¶43

Sri. P.N. Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the decree passed by the Court at Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir) in file No.31A/M of 2007 is a fraudulent decree inasmuch as there was no proper service. Therefore sought for allowing the revision petition.

¶44

Counsel for the respondent absent.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf

¶49

of the petitioner this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶50

On such perusal of the material on record, it is

¶51

crystal clear that the suit came to be filed as summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶52

If the defendant failed to appear and filed an application seeking leave to defend as is contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, necessarily by operation of law, decree shall follow. Same has been done by the Court at Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir). Thereafter there was a decree transfer proceedings filed in File No.31A/M of 2007.

¶53

As such, an Execution case came to be filed before the City Civil Court based on the Order passed in the said decree transfer proceedings.

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Judgment debtor appeared before the Executing

¶57

Court and filed the application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶58

Learned Trial Judge has noted that there is no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the judgment debtor in holding decree as nullity and refused to dismiss the execution petition by dismissing the application filed by revision petitioner.

¶59

In the considered opinion of this Court, when the learned Additional District Judge at Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir) has followed the procedure as contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it should not lie in the mouth of the Judgment Debdtor that said decree is a fraudulent decree.

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:48148 CRP No. 251 of 2017

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63