Dismissed¶60

H.T Babu v. Neravanda B Subbaiah Since Deceased by Lrs M N. Janaki

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/7835/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution proceedings, Section 151 CPC, inherent powers of Executing Court, warrant of execution, JCB/machinery to remove obstruction, police aid (reserve police, S.P. Kodagu, PSI Napoklu), permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction against blocking suit schedule road, construction by judgment debtors on road, decree not challenged binds judgment debtors, Article 227 writ against executing court orders, Madikeri Kodagu, OS.No.21/2007, Ex.No.20/2019, dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is undisputed that the judgment debtors suffered a decree in the suit, the decree was never questioned, and they are bound by it ¶56

H.T Babu Vs Neravanda B Subbaiah Since Deceased… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7835 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

H.T BABU

¶11

S/O. H T. THIMMA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶13

H.T ANNU

¶14

S/O. H.T THIMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶15

ALL RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHI HARIJANA COLONY HODDUR VILLAGE, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 252

¶16

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B.S., ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

NERAVANDA B SUBBAIAH

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶22

M N. JANAKI W/O. N.B SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶23

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

CHETHAN S

¶26

S/O. N. B. SUBBAIAH

¶27

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶28

NUTHAN SUBBAIAH

¶29

S/O. N.B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.412, DX MAX, SAGA APARTMENT SUBRAMANYANAGAR POST, UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 061

¶30

NITHIN SUBBAIAH S/O. N B SUBBAIAH

¶31

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶32

RESPONDENTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT NEW EXTENSION MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(R1 TO R4 ARE SERVED)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 PASSED IN IA NO. 9 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC BY THE RESPONDENTS IN EX. NO. 20/2019 ON THE FILE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT PRODUCED AT ANNX-C.

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Aggrieved by the order passed in IA.No.IX dated 14.01.2026 and also the order dated 24.02.2026 passed on IA No.XIV in Execution Petition No.20/2019 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagu, the petitioners who are judgment debtors are before this Court.

¶42

2. The decree holder No.(d) has filed IA.No.IX under Section 151 of CPC praying to direct the Devi Earth Movers, Madikeri, to remove the obstruction through JCB No.TN-32-F4612 and assist the Court Ameen to execute the warrant and that came to be allowed. When it comes to IA No.XIV, it is an application filed by the Decree holders (a) to (d) to direct the S.P. Kodagu to arrange reserve police and direct the PSI Napoklu Station to assist the Court while executing the warrant and grant suitable reliefs in favour of the applicants. That also came to be allowed by the trial Court and the Court, while

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

allowing IA No.IX has observed that in spite of issuance of court notice, the Judgment debtor No.1 remained absent and further observed that the decree holders have filed the petition for execution of the decree passed in OS No.21/2017. In the said suit, it is ordered and decreed that the defendants are restrained from blocking the suit schedule road for the free use of the suit schedule road by the plaintiff. Now it is stated that the judgment debtors had constructed a house in the decree schedule road which is only approachable road to the decree holders' property. On the other hand, in spite of issuance of the court notice, the judgment debtor No. 1 remained absent and did not object to the application. The judgment debtors have constructed a house in the decree schedule road and therefore, it is difficult for the Ameen to remove the said construction physically. Therefore, assistance of machinery is required to protect the right of the decree holders and accordingly, the trial Court has allowed the applications.

¶47

3. When it comes to IA No.XIV, the trial Court observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments has clearly held that if the Court orders are not followed, the Courts can exercise their inherent powers under

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Section 151 of CPC to ensure that the orders are implemented. Moreover, the very purpose of issuing warrant will be frustrated if the same is not executed and accordingly allowed IA No.XIV.

¶51

4. The learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, erroneous and opposed to well-established principles of law. The Executing Court has failed to notice the delay of more than 11 years in executing the decree in OS No.21/2007 dated 04.03.2008. It is also stated that the Court has failed to consider the report of the Court Commissioner, which clearly mentions that in the schedule property there is a sloping area with some construction. Due to the sloppy nature of the schedule property, there is no space for the road. In the impugned order, the Court considered the sketch produced by the Court Commissioner which shows the existence of a house. It is submitted that through the JCB if they demolish the house it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioners. Hence, the orders impugned may be set aside.

¶52

5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶53

perused the material on record. OS.No.21/2007 was decreed by

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28392 WP No. 7835 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

granting permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction, by restraining the defendants, their men, agents, power of attorney holders or any other persons claiming through them from blocking the suit schedule road for free use of the suit road by the plaintiff. The very suit is filed seeking relief that there should be no construction on the road. That suit was decreed on 14.03.2008. The execution proceedings are filed in the year 2019. It is an undisputed fact that the judgment debtors have suffered a decree, and that decree was never questioned, and they are bound by the decree. The averments in the petition and the submissions made by the petitioners clearly show that there is a construction on the road, which the defendants were injuncted by a judgment and decree of the Civil Court. The petitioners have proceeded to construct a structure blocking the road, and the decree holders have rightly filed an application for execution thereof, and the Court has rightly allowed both applications. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:

¶57