Allowed

Sri. M.D. Purushothama v. Sri. M.V. Rudramurthy

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2026WP/25606/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An execution petition was closed without adjudicating an objector's Order XXI Rule 97 application on the sole ground that the objector had filed a partition suit over the same property. The High Court held this contrary to CPC provisions, quashed the closure order and directed the Trial Court to adjudicate the application in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.09.2023 in Ex.P. No.13/2017 quashed; Trial Court directed to consider the objector's Order XXI Rule 97 application in accordance with law expeditiously.

Sri. M.D. Purushothama Vs Sri. M.V. Rudramurthy — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13948 WP No. 25606 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25606 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M.D. PURUSHOTHAMA S/O M T DEVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS

¶10

MASTER UTTAMGOWDA P S/O LATE M D PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

¶11

MASTER HARSHILGOWDA P S/O LATE M D PURUSHOTHAMA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

¶12

R1 & R2 ARE MINORS REP. THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, M T DEVEGOWDA S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT MALLINATHAPURA VILLAGE BETTADAPURA HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571102

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI. M.V. RUDRAMURTHY S/O M P VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:13948 WP No. 25606 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

2. SRI JAGADEESH

¶23

S/O M V RUDRAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT GORAHALLI VILLAGE BETTADAPURA HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571102

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. MAHADEVAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 )

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN E.P. NO. 13/2017 FROM THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PERIYAPATNA AND TO ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29/09/2023 PASSED ON I.A. NO. IV FILED BY THE R2 HEREIN UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 97 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN E.P. NO. 13/2017 BY THE HONBLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PERIYAPATNA IN CLOSING THE EXECUTION PETITION BY GIVING LIBERTY TO THE DHR TO FILE SUBSEQUENT PETITION UPON DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN O.S. NO. 24/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND RESTORE E.P. NO. 13/2017 TO ITS FILE.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna in Ex.P. No.13/2017, whereby I.A. No.IV filed by respondent No.2/objector under Order XXI Rule 97

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13948 WP No. 25606 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

read with Section 151 of CPC was allowed and the

¶33

execution petition itself was closed.

¶34

The petitioners’ father, who is the decree-holder, had filed a suit in O.S. No.203/2014 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 14.09.2011.

¶35

The suit came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.06.2015. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed an execution petition in Ex.P. No.13/2017.

¶36

During the pendency of the execution proceedings, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC as an objector.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents . Even on the last occasion, this Court, by order dated 17.02.2026, passed the following order:

¶38

“Learned counsel for the petitioners is present, while learned counsel or the respondents

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13948 WP No. 25606 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

has remained continuously absent as can be seen from the order sheet maintained by this Court.

¶42

Hence, re-list finally on 27.02.2026, by making it clear that if the respondents does not appear on that day, the matter would be taken up for final disposal on that day.”

¶43

Since the objector has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the very same property, on that ground alone, the execution petition filed by the petitioner/decree-holder has been closed.

¶44

If an application is filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC by the objector, the Trial Court is required to adjudicate the said application in accordance with law as per the provisions contained in Order XXI Rules 97 of CPC. Contrary to the said provisions, without adjudicating the application, the Trial Court has closed the execution petition filed by the decree-holder. The same is contrary to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. On this ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶45

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:13948 WP No. 25606 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶50

(ii) The order dated 29.09.2023 passed in Ex.P.

¶51

No.13/2017 on the file of the Additional Civil

¶52

Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna is quashed.

¶53

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to consider the application filed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, in accordance with law, as

¶54

expeditiously as possible.

¶55

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1

Sri. M.D. Purushothama v. Sri. M.V. Rudramurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.D. Purushothama v. Sri. M.V. Rudramurthy

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

Mr. Ramesh Vs Mr. Pradeep Kumar. P. M.

Smt. Muniyamma Vs Sri S M Shivashahnkar

Sri N Krishnappa Vs Smt Ranjini Murugan

Ibrahim Sab Vs Chand Pasha

Sri D Harsha Vs Smt Muthu Bai

Sri.N. Ramaiah Since Dead by His Lrs. Sri. Jayaramu.P. Vs Sri. H. Honnaiah