Dismissed

Sri Syed Akram Raza v. Sri P Suhail Ullakhan

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/12622/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a third party challenging an Executing Court's order allowing the decree-holder to amend the schedule of a specific performance decree. The amendment reflected a new survey number assigned after phodi (sub-division) proceedings. The court held that the petitioner, not being a party to the original suit, lacked locus to challenge the amendment, which did not alter the substance of the decree but merely updated the property description for effective execution. The original judgment-debtors did not challenge the order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sri Syed Akram Raza Vs Sri P Suhail Ullakhan — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶4

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12622 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SYED AKRAM RAZA

¶11

S/O LATE MIR RAHMAN ALI, SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶12

1(A) SMT. SYEDA YASMEEN FATHIMA W/O LATE SYED AKRAM RAZA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶13

1(B) SRI. SYED SAMEER RAZA S/O LATE SYED AKRAM RAZA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶14

1(C) SRI. NAKEER RAZA SYED S/O LATE SYED AKRAM RAZA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶15

1(D) SMT. HASMATH AHMED SYED D/O LATE SYED AKRAM RAZA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT ALIPUR VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 208.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶19

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI P SUHAIL ULLAKHAN S/O P RAHAMATHULLA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT LALAMATHOPU (TIPPUNAGAR) GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶25

SRI AMIN KHAN DEAD BY LRS

¶26

2(A) SRI SHAJAHAN S/O LATE MMIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ALKAPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶27

2(B) SRI NOOR AHMED KHAN S/O LATE AMIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ALKAPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶28

2(C) SRI AFZAL AHMED KHAN S/O LATE AMIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT ALKAPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶29

2(D) SRI SHOUKATH KHAN S/O LATE AMIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT ALKAPURA VILLAGE

¶30

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶34

THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶35

2(E) SMT MUBEENA D/O LATE AMIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT ALKAPURA VILLAGE THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶36

LATE T S MUKTHIYAR AHMED SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶37

3(A) SMT KHURSHID UNNISSA W/O LATE T S MUKTHIYAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶38

R/AT NO 1303, MADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶39

3(B) SRI T M NASEER

¶40

S/O LATE T S MUKTHIYAR

¶41

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶42

R/AT NO 1303, MADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶43

3(C) SRI T M MUSHAR AHMED S/O LATE T S MUKTHIYAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶44

R/AT NO 1303, MADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶45

3(D) SRI T M ASMA D/O LATE T S MUKTHIYAR

¶46

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶47

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶50

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶51

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO 1303, MADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208

¶52

3(E) SRI BABY

¶53

D/O LATE T S MUKTHIYAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO 1303, MADANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208

¶54

MR SHAIK HYDER SAB S/O LATE SHAIK MOHIDDIN SAB R/AT VEERSHIVA VIDYARTHI NILAYAM C DIVISION, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN - 561208

¶55

SRI SYED ANJUM RAZA S/O LATE MIR RAHMAN ALI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT ALIPUR, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561208

¶56

…RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SMT. SUNITHA H. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2(B), R2(C), R2(D) AND R2(E) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 08.07.2025 PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST R2(A) IS ABATED)

¶58

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 2, DATED 10.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) CHICKBALLAPUR, IN EX.NO.51/2010, FOR AMENDMENT OF EXECUTION PETITION VIDE ANNX-G.

¶59

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶60

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶63

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶64

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

¶65

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶66

ORAL ORDER

¶67

The captioned writ petition is filed by a third party to the execution proceedings, calling in question the order passed by the learned Executing Court on the application filed by the Decree Holder seeking amendment of the schedule to the decree passed in O.S.No.69/1996, a suit instituted for specific performance.

¶68

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the material on record.

¶69

The Decree Holder filed an application before the Executing Court seeking amendment of the schedule to the decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is specifically pleaded that the agreement of

¶70

sale is dated 28.02.1992. It is further stated that,

¶71

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶72

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶75

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶76

subsequent to the institution of the suit and by the time

¶77

the decree came to be passed, the subject property covered under the suit agreement had undergone phodi proceedings, pursuant to which a fresh survey number came to be assigned to the property. It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop that the Decree Holder sought amendment of the schedule to the decree so as to reflect the survey number assigned to the property consequent upon the phodi proceedings.

¶78

The challenge to the said order at the instance of the present petitioner cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit and claims to be a third party to the decree. Though the petitioner had filed an application before the Executing Court seeking impleadment, the said application has been entertained and the petitioner has been permitted to participate in the execution proceedings. Such participation, by itself, would not confer upon the petitioner a right to question an order

¶79

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶80

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶83

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶84

passed on an application concerning the description of the property forming the subject matter of the decree, particularly when the amendment is sought only to bring the schedule in conformity with the subsequent change in the survey number pursuant to phodi proceedings.

¶85

It is also relevant to note that the original Judgment Debtors, who were parties to the suit and against whom the decree for specific performance was passed, have not chosen to question the order allowing the amendment. The Executing Court, while dealing with a decree which is required to be effectively enforced, is entitled to ensure that the description of the property in the decree corresponds with its present identity. If, pursuant to phodi proceedings, the property covered under the suit agreement has been assigned a new survey number, the amendment sought by the Decree Holder to

¶86

reflect such change in the schedule cannot, in the absence

¶87

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶88

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶91

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶92

of any prejudice being demonstrated, be said to alter the

¶93

nature or substance of the decree.

¶94

Though the impugned order is somewhat cryptic and does not elaborate upon the reasons for allowing the application, the material on record indicates that the amendment was sought only on account of the change in the survey number consequent upon phodi proceedings. More importantly, the present petitioner, being a third party to the original suit, has no locus to maintain a challenge to such an order passed at the instance of the Decree Holder for facilitating effective execution of the decree. The petitioner cannot, under the guise of questioning the amendment to the schedule, seek to reopen or indirectly impeach the decree passed in the suit.

¶95

In that view of the matter, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court.

¶96

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶97

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:50694 WP No. 12622 of 2018

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

CNR: KAHC010097192018

¶100

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is

¶101

accordingly dismissed.

¶102

No order as to costs.

¶103

Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified

¶104

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶105

NBM

¶106

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Syed Akram Raza v. Sri P Suhail Ullakhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Akram Raza v. Sri P Suhail Ullakhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases