M/S Skylark Developers Vs M/S. Air Craft Employees

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AND MR.M.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS, NO. 37/21A, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶11

MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶14

PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS NO. 37/21A. ULSOOR, ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHREERAM.T.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S. AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SO SOCIETY, OFFICE AT NO. 15, 1^ST CROSS. CKC GARDEN,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BANGALORE INSTITUTE

¶23

OPP ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL, K.H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶24

SRI. DAYANANDA REDDY,

¶25

AND SECRETARY SRI. B.H. BALAJI.

¶26

A.R SRIKANTH S/O. RAMAKRISHNA,

¶27

R/A KOPPA HOBLI, AVVERAHALLI , HARALAKERE

¶28

MADDUR, MANDYA – 571 425.

¶29

N. B KEMPEGOWDA S/O. BHADRAIAH,

¶30

R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA MANDYA - 571 423.

¶31

PAVITHRA S W/O. KEMPEGOWDA R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA,

¶32

MANDYA – 571 425.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. GIRISH.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. PRABHULING.K.NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ASHWIN.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

¶35

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

¶36

OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 22/02/2025 IN EX. PETITION NO. 479/2023.

¶37

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

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

This petition by the Decree Holders in Ex.No.479/2023 on the file of XIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by respondents 2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed by the Executing court.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶45

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the 1^st respondent-Society was the plaintiff in O.S.No.7513/2007, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 30.04.2016 in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners filed the instant execution proceedings against the 1^st respondent- Judgment debtor. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, respondents 2 to 4 claiming to be representatives in interest of the petitioner - Decree holder and also

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the beneficiaries of the said compromise decree, filed an application to implead themselves, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶50

Learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that though the said application filed by respondents 2 to 4 invoking Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, in substance / essence, the same is an application under Section 47 of the CPC, which requires an inquiry to be conducted to adjudicate upon the rival contentions and not by way of a separate suit. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by treating the application I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1^st respondent jointly submits that they do not have any objection for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh by treating the same as an application under

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Section 47 CPC by conducting necessary enquiry in this regard and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶56

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed in Ex.No.479/2023 on I.A.No.3 by the Executing Court is hereby set aside.

¶60

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

¶61

(iv) The Executing Court is directed to treat I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and conduct necessary enquiry and dispose of the said application afresh in accordance with law

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

within a period of three months from the next date of hearing of the execution proceedings, which is posted on 18.03.2026.

¶66

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to file additional pleadings and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

¶67

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

¶68

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶69

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶70

Srl.

¶71

1 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶75

BEFORE

¶76

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶77

WRIT PETITION NO. 5675 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶78

BETWEEN:

¶79

M/S SKYLARK DEVELOPERS (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)

¶80

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AND MR.M.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS, NO. 37/21A, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶81

MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶82

M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶83

PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS NO. 37/21A. ULSOOR, ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶84

…PETITIONERS

¶85

(BY SRI. SHREERAM.T.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶86

AND:

¶87

M/S. AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SO SOCIETY, OFFICE AT NO. 15, 1^ST CROSS. CKC GARDEN,

¶88

2 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

BANGALORE INSTITUTE

¶92

OPP ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL, K.H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶93

SRI. DAYANANDA REDDY,

¶94

AND SECRETARY SRI. B.H. BALAJI.

¶95

A.R SRIKANTH S/O. RAMAKRISHNA,

¶96

R/A KOPPA HOBLI, AVVERAHALLI , HARALAKERE

¶97

MADDUR, MANDYA – 571 425.

¶98

N. B KEMPEGOWDA S/O. BHADRAIAH,

¶99

R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA MANDYA - 571 423.

¶100

PAVITHRA S W/O. KEMPEGOWDA R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA,

¶101

MANDYA – 571 425.

¶102

…RESPONDENTS

¶103

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. GIRISH.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. PRABHULING.K.NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ASHWIN.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

¶104

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

¶105

OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 22/02/2025 IN EX. PETITION NO. 479/2023.

¶106

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

¶107

3 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶111

ORAL ORDER

¶112

This petition by the Decree Holders in Ex.No.479/2023 on the file of XIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by respondents 2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed by the Executing court.

¶113

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶114

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the 1^st respondent-Society was the plaintiff in O.S.No.7513/2007, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 30.04.2016 in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners filed the instant execution proceedings against the 1^st respondent- Judgment debtor. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, respondents 2 to 4 claiming to be representatives in interest of the petitioner - Decree holder and also

¶115

4 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

the beneficiaries of the said compromise decree, filed an application to implead themselves, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶119

Learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that though the said application filed by respondents 2 to 4 invoking Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, in substance / essence, the same is an application under Section 47 of the CPC, which requires an inquiry to be conducted to adjudicate upon the rival contentions and not by way of a separate suit. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by treating the application I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law.

¶120

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1^st respondent jointly submits that they do not have any objection for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh by treating the same as an application under

¶121

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

Section 47 CPC by conducting necessary enquiry in this regard and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶124

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶125

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶126

ORDER

¶127

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶128

(ii) The impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed in Ex.No.479/2023 on I.A.No.3 by the Executing Court is hereby set aside.

¶129

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

¶130

(iv) The Executing Court is directed to treat I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and conduct necessary enquiry and dispose of the said application afresh in accordance with law

¶131

6 -

¶132

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

within a period of three months from the next date of hearing of the execution proceedings, which is posted on 18.03.2026.

¶135

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to file additional pleadings and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

¶136

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

¶137

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶138

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶139

Srl.

¶140

1 -

¶141

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶142

HC-KAR

¶143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶144

BEFORE

¶145

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶146

WRIT PETITION NO. 5675 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶147

BETWEEN:

¶148

M/S SKYLARK DEVELOPERS (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)

¶149

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AND MR.M.NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS, NO. 37/21A, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶150

MR. SALEEM SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶151

M. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶152

PETITIONER NO.2 & 3 ARE AT SKYLARK CHAMBERS NO. 37/21A. ULSOOR, ROAD, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶153

…PETITIONERS

¶154

(BY SRI. SHREERAM.T.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)

¶155

AND:

¶156

M/S. AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SO SOCIETY, OFFICE AT NO. 15, 1^ST CROSS. CKC GARDEN,

¶157

2 -

¶158

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶159

HC-KAR

¶160

BANGALORE INSTITUTE

¶161

OPP ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL, K.H. ROAD, DOUBLE ROAD, BANGALORE -560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶162

SRI. DAYANANDA REDDY,

¶163

AND SECRETARY SRI. B.H. BALAJI.

¶164

A.R SRIKANTH S/O. RAMAKRISHNA,

¶165

R/A KOPPA HOBLI, AVVERAHALLI , HARALAKERE

¶166

MADDUR, MANDYA – 571 425.

¶167

N. B KEMPEGOWDA S/O. BHADRAIAH,

¶168

R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA MANDYA - 571 423.

¶169

PAVITHRA S W/O. KEMPEGOWDA R/A VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE ROAD NAGAMANGALA,

¶170

MANDYA – 571 425.

¶171

…RESPONDENTS

¶172

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. GIRISH.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 SRI. PRABHULING.K.NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. ASHWIN.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4)

¶173

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION

¶174

OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE OF XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DATED 22/02/2025 IN EX. PETITION NO. 479/2023.

¶175

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

¶176

3 -

¶177

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶178

HC-KAR

¶179

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶180

ORAL ORDER

¶181

This petition by the Decree Holders in Ex.No.479/2023 on the file of XIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 filed by respondents 2 to 4 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed by the Executing court.

¶182

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and perused the material on record.

¶183

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the 1^st respondent-Society was the plaintiff in O.S.No.7513/2007, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 30.04.2016 in terms of the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre. In pursuance of the same, the petitioners filed the instant execution proceedings against the 1^st respondent- Judgment debtor. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, respondents 2 to 4 claiming to be representatives in interest of the petitioner - Decree holder and also

¶184

4 -

¶185

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶186

HC-KAR

¶187

the beneficiaries of the said compromise decree, filed an application to implead themselves, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned order, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶188

Learned Senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that though the said application filed by respondents 2 to 4 invoking Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, in substance / essence, the same is an application under Section 47 of the CPC, which requires an inquiry to be conducted to adjudicate upon the rival contentions and not by way of a separate suit. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by treating the application I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law.

¶189

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for the 1^st respondent jointly submits that they do not have any objection for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh by treating the same as an application under

¶190

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶191

HC-KAR

¶192

Section 47 CPC by conducting necessary enquiry in this regard and to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶193

In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the Executing Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶194

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶195

ORDER

¶196

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶197

(ii) The impugned order dated 22.02.2025 passed in Ex.No.479/2023 on I.A.No.3 by the Executing Court is hereby set aside.

¶198

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the Executing court for reconsideration of I.A.No.3 afresh in accordance with law.

¶199

(iv) The Executing Court is directed to treat I.A.No.3 as an application under Section 47 CPC and conduct necessary enquiry and dispose of the said application afresh in accordance with law

¶200

6 -

¶201

NC: 2026:KHC:9334 WP No. 5675 of 2025

¶202

HC-KAR

¶203

within a period of three months from the next date of hearing of the execution proceedings, which is posted on 18.03.2026.

¶204

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of all parties to file additional pleadings and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.

¶205

(vi) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open

¶206

and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶207

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶208

Srl.

M/S Skylark Developers v. M/S. Air Craft Employees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Skylark Developers v. M/S. Air Craft Employees

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. Anjinamma Vs Sri Nagaraj

Chandraswamy @Chaluvanna Vs Parvathamma

Sri G Raju Vs Zeenath

Mr. M. C. Shukur Vs Mr. Musheer Ahammed

Sri. Venaktesh G Vs Sri. Pillaiah

Sri. T Sreenivasaiah Vs Smt. Jayamma