Allowed¶47

R Selvam v. Sri Akumalla Somashekar

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2026WP/18591/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Article 227 certiorari; execution petition E.P.No.1534/2024; delivery warrant; Order XXI Rule 35 CPC; Order 21 Rule 97 CPC objection; Section 151 CPC police help; break-open of lock; Marathahalli Police Station; bailiff report; objector in possession; specific performance decree; XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru; High Court of Karnataka; Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; order dated 15.06.2026 set aside; time bound direction of 3 months.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.06.2026 passed on I.A.No.2 in Ex.P.No.1534/2024 was set aside and the writ petition allowed; the trial court was directed to consider the objector's I.A.No.1 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC expeditiously and not later than 3 months from receipt of the copy of the order; all pending I.As in the petition stand closed. ¶47

R Selvam Vs Sri Akumalla Somashekar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution court could issue a delivery warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC (breaking open the lock and delivering vacant possession) while the objector's application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC remained undisposed, when the bailiff's report showed the objector in possession.

¶41

Court's answer

As per the bailiff's report, the objector was in possession of the property and had filed an objection before the trial court; the trial court therefore ought to have passed an order on that application before issuing the delivery warrant.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Issuing the delivery warrant first, exposing the objector to forcible dispossession, would put the objector to hardship and is not the purport of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided on 19 June 2026 by Lalitha Kanneganti, J. The XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by order dated 15.06.2026 on I.A.No.2 under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC in E.P.No.1534/2024 (arising from a specific-performance suit decreed on 17.09.2021), issued a delivery warrant to break open the lock and deliver possession with Marathahalli Police Station assistance, even though the bailiff's report disclosed the objector-petitioners in possession and their Order XXI Rule 97 CPC application (I.A.No.1) undisposed. Held that where the bailiff's report shows an objector in possession and an objection pending, the trial court ought to decide that application before issuing a delivery warrant; issuing the warrant first, leading to forcible dispossession, causes hardship and defeats the purport of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. The order dated 15.06.2026 was set aside, the petition allowed, and the trial court directed to consider I.A.No.1 within three months; all pending I.As were closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30524 WP No. 18591 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 18591 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

R. SELVAM S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT SCHOOL STREET, DEVERA BEESANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 103

¶11

KUMAR B.R S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 358, DEVERA BEESANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 103

¶12

HARISH D.R

¶13

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 18, MARAMMA TEMPLE, DEVERA BEESANAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 103

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. GAUTHAM S BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ANKITH JAIN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI AKUMALLA SOMASHEKAR ALSO KNOWN AS SHASTRY SOMASHEKAR S/O wLATE SHESHAPPA,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:30524 WP No. 18591 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 4224, LALITHA KAMAKSHI TEMPLE, MUTHYALAPETE, MULABAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 131

¶23

G.A. MANOHAR S/O. G.N. ASHWATHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNJURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 087

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 35 OF CPC IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2024 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2026 INSOFAR AS THEY SEEK DELIVERY OF VACANT POSSESSION AND BREAK-OPEN OF LOCK IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (ANNEXURE A) BY ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-39).

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Aggrieved by orders passed on I.A.No.2 filed under

¶31

Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC in E.P.No.1534/2024 dated 15.06.2026 by the XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the petitioner objector is before this court.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30524 WP No. 18591 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The respondent herein is the plaintiff, who has filed the suit for specific performance, which was decreed on 17.09.2021. Thereafter, the execution petition was filed, and the Decree Holder has filed I.A.No.2 under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC, seeking to break open the lock of the suit schedule property and deliver possession of the property. I.A.No.3 is filed by the Decree Holder under Section 151 CPC, seeking directions to Marathahalli Police Station for furnishing necessary police help. The trial court, in the order, observed that, upon perusal of the report of the bailiff of the court, the occupants of the premises violently objected to the delivery of possession, sought police help, and sought permission to break open the locks. The trial court further observed that the judgment and decree were passed on 17.02.2021 and that no appeal was filed against them, and accordingly issued a delivery warrant with the help of Marathahalli Police Station by breaking open the lock.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/objector submits that the bailiff report also states that the petitioner is in possession of the property. When the petitioner has filed an

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30524 WP No. 18591 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, unless the said application is heard and orders are passed, all the more so when the bailiff report clearly discloses that the petitioner is in occupation of the property, the trial court ought not to have passed such an order, and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that there may be a direction to the trial court to hear the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree

¶40

holder submits that the time frame may be fixed by the trial Court to consider the IA filed under Order 21, Rule 97.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This court finds that, as per the bailiff's report, when the objector is in possession of the property and has filed an objection before the trial court, the trial court ought to have passed an order on that application before issuing the delivery warrant. Unfortunately, the delivery warrant was issued. Once the delivery warrant is issued and the objector is forcibly dispossessed from the property, the objector will be put to hardship. This is not the purport of Order

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:30524 WP No. 18591 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

XXI Rule 97 of the CPC. In that view of the matter, this court is passing the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The order dated 15.06.2026 passed on I.A.no.2 in Ex.P.No.1534/2024 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

¶48

ii. The trial court shall consider the IA.No.1 filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC by the objector as expeditiously as possible but not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶49

iii. All pending I.As in the petition shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶51

¶52

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

R Selvam v. Sri Akumalla Somashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Selvam v. Sri Akumalla Somashekar

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

Smt K Rajeshwari Vs Sri B Somashekhar

Sri B M Manjunatha Vs Smt. Lakshmamma

Sri Pillappa Vs Sri K Muniraju

Sri H R Malleswarappa Vs the Managing Director Mescom

Mr v.Munikrishna Vs Mr L Ravi

Smt Anasuya Vs Sri G Krishnamurthy