Sri. Muniraju M v. Karnataka State Government

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2026WP/22844/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; W.P. No.22844/2022 (GM-CPC); decided 22-07-2026 by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil. Keywords: Article 227 writ against Executing Court order; Ex.No.1868/2020; decree of O.S.No.3395/2011 (permanent injunction); police assistance under Section 151 CPC; closure of execution file dated 08.01.2021; objectors' applications under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC; enquiry in execution; possession claim as allottees from original defendant; reopening/re-registration order dated 01.10.2022 left unchallenged; petition rejected, no costs. No external precedents cited or relied upon in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition, being devoid of merits, was rejected (court's term: 'rejected', recorded here as dismissed) with no order as to costs.

Sri. Muniraju M Vs Karnataka State Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the writ petition, being devoid of merits, was rejected (court's term: 'rejected', recorded here as dismissed) with no order as to costs.

¶¶116

Issue for consideration

Whether the Executing Court's order dated 04.07.2022 permitting the objectors to participate in the execution proceedings and directing an enquiry into their asserted rights is sustainable and open to interference under Article 227. +1 more

¶¶98

Court's answer

The impugned Executing Court order is a well-reasoned order which took into account the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; taking note of rival contentions, the Executing Court formed the opinion that the objectors had to be given an opportunity to put forth their case and that an enquiry was necessary, since they specifically pleaded that the judgment and decree under execution was passed without arraying them as parties while they remain in actual possession of the suit schedule property as allottees from the original defendant.

¶¶100

Ratio / Principle

The Executing Court ordering an enquiry cannot be called in question, as the law provides for enquiry where objectors are able to point out that they have a right to object to enforcement of the decree; the Executing Court rightly allowed the objectors to come on record and ordered an enquiry, which cannot be interfered with.

¶¶107

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that the objectors ought first to have applied to reopen the execution petition and then sought recall of the closure order cannot be raised, because the petitioner has not challenged the Executing Court's order restoring (reopening) the execution petition.ratio¶¶108

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution proceedings (Ex.No.1868/2020) arising from a decreed injunction suit (O.S.No.3395/2011) — decree holder's legal heir obtained police-assistance order dated 08.01.2021 under Section 151 CPC, after which the file was closed — objectors (respondents 2 to 8) later applied under Order XXI Rules 97 to 99 with Sections 47 and 151 CPC, and under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 with Section 151 CPC, to dismiss the execution or to come on record; Executing Court by order dated 04.07.2022 allowed the applications under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, permitted them to participate as objectors, and (by unchallenged order dated 01.10.2022) reopened the execution petition and directed an enquiry — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 04.07.2022 REJECTED: held, the impugned order is well reasoned and within the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 97 CPC; enquiry is provided for where objectors point out a right to object to enforcement of the decree, and allowing them on record cannot be interfered with; the contention that objectors should first have sought reopening before recall is untenable since the restoration order itself was not challenged — No costs.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.22844/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUNIRAJU .M S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED 39 YEARS R/AT ERANAPALYA VISHWANEEDAM POST SREEGANDHADAKAVALU YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560091-560091.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SADHANA S. DESAI, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT D GROUP EMPLOYEES CENTRAL ASSOCIATION (R) DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI M S BUILDING, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560001 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT B.M. NATARAJA ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT.

¶15

SRI. K.H. KRISHNAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED 63 YEARS

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶19

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶20

R/AT. ERANAPALYA SREEGANDADHAKAVALU DHAKALE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560091.

¶21

SMT. SHARADAMMA D/O NANJE GOWDA W/O K.H. KRISHNAIAH AGED 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.2521, 1^ST MAIN ROAD 15^TH CROSS ROAD, VEERNAPALYA VISHWANADEEM POST SREEGANDHADAKAVALU BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560091.

¶22

SRI. SABANNA NAGAPPA KOLLUR S/O NAGAPPA KOLLUR AGED 69 YEARS R/AT NO.3344, 5TH CROSS GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU 560021.

¶23

SMT. KANTHALAKSHMI W/O T.S. SUBRAMANYAM AGED 85 YEARS R/AT NO.1677, 6TH CROSS 6TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU 560040.

¶24

SMT JAYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S.

¶25

6(a) SMT. DAKSHAYANI RAVI W/O RAVI T.K. D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT. NO.32, SWAGATH VINAYAKA

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶29

PARADISE, 3^RD STAGE

¶30

VINAYAKA LAYOUT

¶31

VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶32

6(b) SMT. GAYATHRI VENKATACHALAM W/O H. VENKATACHALAM D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT. NO.12, 1^ST MAIN ROAD MICO LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE

¶33

AREKERE, BENGALURU-560078.

¶34

6(c) SMT. MANJULA PRABHAKAR D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT. NO.92, 4^TH CROSS 7^TH MAIN, GAURAV NAGAR J.P. NAGAR 7^TH PHASE BENGALURU-560078.

¶35

6(d) SMT. KALPANA W/O RAVI D/O LATE JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. NO.19, 8^TH CROSS SHIVANANDANAGAR MOODALAPALYA, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU-560072.

¶36

6(e) SRI. VAGEESH AYYAR SUBRAMANYAM S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA KYER AND JAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT. NO.694, 9^TH MAIN 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560038.

¶37

SRI. K.S. RAVIKUMAR S/O OF SRI SHIVANNA AGED 50 YEARS R/AT NO.294,O CROSS

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶42

1ST MAIN, 1ST BLOCK NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560072.

¶43

SMT. Y.N. LALITHA W/O SRI. NATARAJ N.D. AGED 44 YEARS R/AT NO.485, 2ND CROSS VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560040.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV., FOR R2 TO R6 SRI. C.V. ANNAIAH, ADV., FOR R7 & R8 SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADV., FOR R6 (a to d) V/O/DTD:08.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

¶47

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE XXXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN EXECUTION PETITION NO.1868/2020. QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.07.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN EXECUTION PET. NO.1868/2020 VIDE ANNX-K & ETC.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶52

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER

¶54

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶55

“a) Call for records from the Court of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Execution Petition No.1868 of 2020;

¶56

b) Quash or set aside the impugned Order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Execution Pet. No.1868 of 2020 as per Annexure-K to this Writ Petition.

¶57

c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶58

Smt.Sadhana S.Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.3395/2011 for injunction against respondent No.1, the suit came to be decreed and the plaintiff-decree holder died on 26.03.2018. Thereafter, the son of the decree holder filed the execution proceedings as

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶62

the judgment debtor was interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in violation of the decree and sought the decree to be implemented through police help. It is submitted that the Executing Court vide a detailed order dated 08.01.2021, ordered the jurisdictional police to extend their help in protecting the possession of the decree holder against respondent No.1 and further the jurisdictional police to proceed as per the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in the event of any complaint given by the decree holder against the judgment debtor and closed the execution proceedings. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 8 claiming to be the objectors, filed applications objecting the execution proceedings and the Executing Court vide order dated 04.07.2022 permitted the objectors to participate in the execution proceedings and later, on 01.10.2022 the execution proceedings was ordered to be reopened and the office was directed to re-register the Execution Petition

¶63

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶66

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶67

in the same number and put up the file for further orders. The procedure adopted by the Executing Court is incorrect. It is also submitted that the objectors have filed an application to recall the order dated 08.01.2021 and such an application is not maintainable until the objectors seek to reopen the case and thereafter they have to seek recall of the order of closure of the execution proceedings. The Executing Court has committed grave error in following incorrect procedure. It is contended that once the execution proceedings are closed, the remedy to the objectors would be to challenge the judgment and decree before the Appellate Court or to file a Civil Revision Petition challenging the said order. However, the Executing Court has erred in restoring the execution proceedings by following incorrect procedure. It is further contended that considering the possession of the decree holder and his LRs, who is the petitioner in the execution petition, the Executing Court has directed the police to help to protect the possession of the petitioner against the

¶68

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶71

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶72

respondent No.1. It is also contended that it is a defence set up against respondent No.1 and not an attack on the objectors. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition.

¶73

Per contra, Sri.H.R.Anantha Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, Sri. C.V.Annaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8, Sri.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6(a to d) support the order under challenge and submit that the objectors came to know about the decree later and on verification of the records, they found that the decree is unenforceable since they are in possession of the property and sought to recall the order of closure of the execution proceedings and thereafter filed an application in the execution proceedings. The Executing Court under the impugned order allowed the objection and ordered to hold an enquiry, and the filing of the writ petition is premature, and the Executing Court has to permit the parties to adduce evidence and thereafter either sustain

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶77

the objections or it can proceed with the execution proceedings. It is submitted that the suit is filed by one Sri.Munihanumaiah and the execution petition is filed by Sri.M.Muniswamappa and such execution petition is not maintainable unless the cause title of the execution petition indicates that M.Muniswamappa is the legal heir of Munihanumaiah. It is further submitted that the decree holder filed common objections to the applications filed by the objectors and at para No.13 of the objections, it is averred that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff i.e., Munihanumaiah, had died and his elder son Muniswamappa being one of the legal heir also died during the pendency of the execution petition and now other legal heirs of Munihanumaiah (original plaintiff) is before the Court. The said admission in the objections is sufficient to dismiss the execution petition, as if it is accepted that the decree passed by the trial Court is in favour of the deceased person and the said decree is unenforceable. Hence, they seek to dismiss the petition.

¶78

10 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶81

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶82

I have heard the arguments of learned counsel

¶83

appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶84

It is to be noticed that one Sri.Munihanumaiah had filed the suit in O.S.No.3395/2011 seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 - Karnataka State Government ‘D’ Group Employees Central Association (R), Bengaluru. The said suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 29.11.2017. The records indicate that the decree holder Sri.Munihanumaiah had died on 26.03.2018 and thereafter the legal heir of the decree holder initiated the execution proceedings in Ex.No.1868/2020. In the said proceedings, the decree holder filed an application in I.A.No.1 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘the CPC’ ) seeking police assistance to enforce the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3395/2011. The said application came to be allowed by the Executing Court on 08.01.2021;

¶85

11 -

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶88

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶89

the said order indicates that after allowing the application,

¶90

the Executing Court has ordered to close the file.

¶91

It is to be noticed that the respondent Nos.2 to

¶92

8 have filed applications as per Annexures-E, F and G, wherein one application is filed under Order XXI Rule 97 to 99 read with Sections 47 and 151 of CPC to dismiss the execution proceedings and another two applications are filed under Order XXI Rule 97, 98, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 of CPC to come on record in the execution proceedings and permit the objectors to contest the case on merits. These applications are accompanied with the affidavits of the objectors. The said applications of the objectors were opposed by the petitioner by filing the common objections which is produced at Annexure-H.

¶93

It is to be noticed that the Executing Court vide order dated 04.07.2022, allowed the objectors’ applications under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and permitted to participate in the execution petition as objectors to

¶94

12 -

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶97

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶98

prove their right over the subject matter of the execution proceedings. The said order is under challenge.

¶99

It is to be noticed that the Executing Court vide

¶100

order dated 01.10.2022 ordered the office to reopen the execution petition and directed to re-register the execution petition on the same number and put up the office file for further orders. The Executing Court under the impugned order, taking note of the objections of the objectors, had allowed them to contest the proceedings and ordered to hold inquiry regarding the assertion made by the objectors. In my considered view, the impugned order of the Executing Court is well a reasoned order which has taken into account the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 97 of the CPC and taking note of the rival contentions, the Executing Court has formed an opinion that the objectors are required to be provided an opportunity to put forth their case and an enquiry is necessary as the objectors have specifically pleaded that the judgment and decree in

¶101

13 -

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶104

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶105

question which is put for execution is without arraying them as parties and they are in actual possession of the suit schedule property being the allottees from the original defendant.

¶106

In my considered view, the Executing Court

¶107

ordering for enquiry cannot be called in question as the law provides for enquiry if the objectors are able to point out that they have a right to object the enforcement of the decree. Be that as it may, the Executing Court has rightly allowed the objectors to come on record and proceeded to order for holding enquiry which cannot be interfered with.

¶108

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objectors ought to have filed an application to reopen the execution petition first and then sought for recalling the closure of the execution proceedings, in my considered view such a contention cannot be raised as the petitioner has not challenged the

¶109

14 -

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:37805 W.P. No.22844/2022

¶112

CNR: KAHC010525312022

¶113

order of restoration of execution petition by the Executing

¶114

Court in the present petition.

¶115

In view of the preceding analysis, the writ

¶116

petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly

¶117

rejected .

¶118

No order as to costs.

¶119

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶120

BSR

¶121

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.07.2022 in Execution Petition No.1868/2020 (Annexure-K), whereby the Executing Court allowed the objectors' applications (including under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC) and permitted them to participate in the execution proceedings and ordered an enquiry.¶¶56
XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 04.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Sri. Munihanumaiah filed suit O.S.No.3395/2011 seeking permanent injunction against respondent No.1 association.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 29.11.2017.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
Decree holder Munihanumaiah died on 26.03.2018; his legal heir initiated execution proceedings in Ex.No.1868/2020.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
Decree holder filed I.A.No.1 under Section 151 CPC seeking police assistance to enforce the decree.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
By order dated 08.01.2021 the Executing Court allowed the police-assistance application (directing police help per CrPC 1973) and thereafter ordered the file closed.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
After allowance of the application, the Executing Court ordered closure of the file.¶¶90
Prior proceeding
Respondents 2 to 8 filed objector applications: one under Order XXI Rules 97 to 99 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC to dismiss the execution proceedings, and two under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC to come on record and contest on merits; opposed by common objections (Annexure-H).¶¶92
Prior proceeding
Objectors' companion applications under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 100 and 101 read with Section 151 CPC sought recordal and permission to contest the execution on merits.¶¶92
Prior proceeding
By the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 the Executing Court allowed the objectors' applications under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC and permitted them to participate as objectors to prove their right over the subject matter.¶¶93
Prior proceeding
By order dated 01.10.2022 the Executing Court ordered reopening and re-registration of the execution petition on the same number and directed an enquiry regarding the assertions made by the objectors. This restoration order was not challenged in the writ petition.¶¶100

Sri. Muniraju M v. Karnataka State Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muniraju M v. Karnataka State Government

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

B E Madhukumar @ B E Madhu Vs B Kalleshappa S/O Bommanna

B E Madhukumar @ B E Madhu Vs B Kalleshappa

Smt Savithramma Vs Late Sri Pujar Hanumanthaiah Dead by Lrs

Smt. Pushpa Vs Sri. Venuvas

Sri G Vasudev Simha Vs Sri Velu D Pethi

Sri Ganesha Sadhana Trust (R) Vs Chitradurga District Central Co. Operative Bank