Disposed¶45

Sri v. Shankar v Sri M Venkataswamy

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2026WP/7906/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Article 227 writ petition disposed of; maintainability of execution proceedings against former office-holders deferred to Executing Court; impugned order dt. 20.02.2020 in EP No.3268/2014 (show cause notice to judgment debtors) by XXVII Addl City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-9); underlying decree OS.No.6338/2004 dt. 29.02.2012; State's appeal RFA.No.1366/2015 pending; decree holder undertook not to precipitate execution; liberty granted to petitioners V. Shankar and Dr. B.R. Dayananda; single judge Vijaykumar A. Patil; decided 07.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

No further orders passed in the writ petition; liberty granted to the petitioners to raise contentions on maintainability of the execution proceedings against them before the Executing Court, if the execution proceedings are revived after disposal of RFA.No.1366/2015.

Sri v Shankar Vs Sri M Venkataswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution proceedings (Execution Petition No.3268/2014) are maintainable against the petitioners, who are arrayed as respondents by their individual names although they no longer hold the offices they held at the time of the decree.

¶40

Court's answer

The petitioners' contention that the execution proceedings are not maintainable against them (being named individually though out of office) is required to be raised before the Executing Court, and the Executing Court is required to consider it on merits before proceeding further.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

As the State's appeal RFA.No.1366/2015 against the underlying decree is pending and the decree holder undertook not to precipitate execution, no further orders are required in the writ petition; liberty is granted to the petitioners to raise the maintainability contentions before the Executing Court if the execution proceedings are revived after disposal of the RFA.

¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.7906/2021 (GM-CPC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 07.07.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil (filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India). Petitioners — a retired Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District and a former Revenue Officer/Tahsildar — sought setting aside of the order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Execution Petition No.3268/2014 by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-9), under which show cause notice was issued to judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4, pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 in OS.No.6338/2004 obtained by respondent No.1/decree holder against the State of Karnataka and various officials. Petitioners contended that, being arrayed as respondents in execution by individual names though no longer holding office, the execution proceedings were not maintainable. The Court held that this contention must be raised before and considered on merits by the Executing Court. Senior counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the State's appeal RFA.No.1366/2015 against the decree is pending and that the decree holder would not precipitate execution until its disposal. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to raise the maintainability contentions before the Executing Court if the execution proceedings are revived after disposal of the RFA.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.7906/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. V. SHANKAR S/O LATE R. VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.331/11, 23RD CROSS 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041.

¶9

DR. B.R. DAYANANDA S/O T. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS REVENUE OFFICER (WEST) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560020.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADV.,)

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI. M. VENKATASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT. NO.30, BESIDES ASHWATHAKATTE GANESHA TEMPLE CHIKKALLASANDRA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE-560061.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

DR. B. BASAVARAJU MAJOR PRESENTLY WORKING AS COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION CUNNINGHAM ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE-560052.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUNIL K.N. ADV., FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE TRIAL COURT. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 20.02.2020 PASSED IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 3268/2014 BY THE HON’BLE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-9) (ANNX-H) AND RESULTANTLY, DISMISS EXECUTION PETITION NO.3268/2014 FILED BY THE R-1 HEREIN (ANNX-G) & ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

a) Call for records from the trial Court;

¶28

b) Set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed in Execution Petition No.3268/2014 by the Hon’ble XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-9) (Annexure -H) and resultantly, dismiss execution petition No.3268/2014 filed by the respondent No.1 herein (Annexure-G) and in the interest of justice and equity;

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

c) Pass any other order including the costs of this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

Heard Sri.Satish K., learned counsel appearing

¶34

for the petitioners, Sri.R.S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for Sri.Suni K.N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶35

The petitioners are the retired Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District and former Revenue Officer, who later became Tahsildar. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2012 obtained by respondent No.1/decree holder in OS.No.6338/2004 were passed against the respondents, the State of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka; the Principal Secretary, Forest Department; the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District; the Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore South Sub-Division; the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk; the Chief

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Conservator of Forests and the BBMP. However, respondent No.1/decree holder filed the execution proceedings against Dr.B.Basavaraju and others including the petitioners herein by naming them. It is to be noticed that when the property was attached, the judgment debtors filed an application seeking prayer to remove the attachment which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 29.02.2012 and thereafter, the Executing Court under the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 issued show cause notice to the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 4, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

¶40

The contention of the petitioners is that they are arrayed as respondents in the execution proceedings by their individual names and they are no more holding the office. Hence, the execution proceedings are not maintainable. In my considered view, the said contention is required to be raised before the Executing Court and the Executing Court is required to consider the same on merits before proceeding further.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:33958 W.P. No.7906/2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

At this stage, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1/decree holder submits that the State has preferred an appeal challenging the judgment and decree in OS.No.6338/2004 before this Court in RFA.No.1366/2015 and the said appeal is pending consideration. It is further submitted that until the appeal is disposed of, the decree holder would not precipitate the execution proceedings.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that no further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition, by granting liberty to the petitioners to raise the contentions with regard to the maintainability of the execution proceedings against them before the Executing Court, if the execution proceedings are revived after the disposal of the RFA. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶46

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶47

ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri v. Shankar v Sri M Venkataswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Shankar v Sri M Venkataswamy

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

Kum Kamalakshi Vs Mrs Wilma Dias

Sri Krishna Gowda Vs Smt. Padma

Syed Ilyas Vs Smt Indiramma

Mr M B Basavaraj Vs M/S Bhandari Builders Private Limited

K. Vasu Vs M.V. Dayanand

Muniraja Reddy Vs Smt.Chinnamma