Disposed¶36

Sri Markondappa v. Sri R Munikrishnappa

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2026CRP/20/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution of decree of permanent injunction; willful disobedience of decree; detention in civil prison; attachment of immovable property; judgment debtor's affidavit undertaking; setting aside of executing court's order; Section 115 CPC civil revision petition; Kolar; judgment debtor vs decree holder; O.S.No.377/2006; Ex.No.53/2023.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Execution Case No.53/2023, solely on the basis of the petitioner/judgment debtor's affidavit undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, with the petitioner remaining fully bound by that undertaking. ¶36

Sri Markondappa Vs Sri R Munikrishnappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Execution Case No.53/2023 (declaration of willful disobedience of the permanent injunction decree, Rs.1,000 costs, 30-day civil prison detention and one-year attachment of immovable property) ought to be set aside / not executed, in view of the judgment debtor's affidavit undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

¶35

Court's answer

In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, the impugned order passed by the Executing Court need not be executed at this juncture.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of while setting aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in Execution Case No.53/2023, only on the basis of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor clearly undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property in future.

¶36

Key takeaways

The petitioner/Judgment Debtor shall be fully bound by the undertaking given before this Court.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R Devdas J.), Oral Order dated 12.02.2026 in CRP No. 20 of 2026 (filed u/s 115 CPC): The petitioner, judgment debtor in O.S.No.377/2006 (suit for permanent injunction, decree upheld through regular appeal and regular second appeal), challenged the order dated 12.12.2025 of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in Execution Case No.53/2023, whereby he was declared to have willfully disobeyed the decree of permanent injunction, directed to pay Rs.1,000 costs to the decree holder, detained in civil prison for 30 days, and his immovable property attached for one year. Finding that the judgment debtor had filed an affidavit dated 07.02.2026 undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property, the Court held that the impugned order need not be executed at that juncture, disposed of the revision petition while setting aside the impugned order solely on the basis of that affidavit, and held the petitioner fully bound by the undertaking given before the Court.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8721 CRP No. 20 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MARKONDAPPA S/O LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT CHINNAPURA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 563 101

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. S VENKATESH SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI. R. MUNIKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT CHINNAPURA VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2025, PASSED IN EX.NO.53/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOLAR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:8721 CRP No. 20 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.377/2006, who is also the respondent in the execution case filed at the hands of the Decree Holder in Execution Case No.53/2023 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Kolar.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶25

The suit which was filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction was allowed and a judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court, permanently injuncting the defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property. The regular appeal and regular second appeal filed at the hands of the defendant were also dismissed. However, in spite of the judgment and decree being passed against the defendant, since there was interference at the hands of the defendant Judgment

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8721 CRP No. 20 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Debtor, the plaintiff filed execution case for executing the decree of permanent injunction.

¶29

The Judgment Debtor is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in Execution Case No.53/2023, where the Judgment Debtor is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000 to the Decree Holder and it is declared that the Judgment Debtor has willfully disobeyed the decree of permanent injunction and therefore, the Judgment Debtor is directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of 30 days, while passing an order of attachment of the immovable property belonging to the Judgment Debtor for a period of one year.

¶30

The Judgment Debtor has filed an Affidavit dated 07.02.2026 clearly stating that he will not interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and will never do it in future and will not violate the decree passed by the Court.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:8721 CRP No. 20 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In view of the undertaking given by the

¶35

petitioner/Judgment Debtor, this Court has the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Executing Court need not be executed at this juncture.

¶36

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of while setting aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar in Execution Case No.53/2023, only on the basis of the Affidavit filed by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, clearly undertaking not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property at the hands of the plaintiff in future. The petitioner/ Judgment Debtor shall be fully bound by the undertaking given before this Court.

¶37

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶38

DL CT: JL

Sri Markondappa v. Sri R Munikrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Markondappa v. Sri R Munikrishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajithkumar a v Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. a. M. Murali Mohan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S. Ganapathi Silks, Vs Smt. Sandhya Ravindranath

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Shivananda H.V. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Frontier Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka