Karnataka High Court
WP/28380/2026 of SMT NINGAJAMMA Vs BASAPPASETTY H N on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010622072026 NC: 2026:KHC:52973 WP No. 28380 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 28380 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NINGAJAMMA W/O LATE. THAMMEGOWDA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 28380 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. NINGAJAMMA
W/O LATE. THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS..
2.
SRI. HARISHA
S/O LATE. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3.
KUMARA
S/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS..
ALL ARE R/AT HOSAKOTE VILLAGE,
CHUNCHANKATTE HOBLI,
SALIGRAMA TALUK-571603,
(PREVIOUSLY K.R.NAGAR TALUK)
MYSURU-DISTRICT
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI A.LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
BASAPPASETTY H. N.,
S/O LATE NANJAPPASETTY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
MANAGER, SRI RACHAVATTI
VEERABADRASWAMY GADDIGE,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
AND SRI. NAJUNDESHWARA KAMBI
DEVARU OF HOSAKOTE,
CHUCHANAKATTE HOBLI,
SALIGRAMA TALUK-571603,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2.
SRI.H.B.NANJAPPA
S/O BASAPPASETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT HOSAKOTE VILLAGE,
CHUCHANAKATTE HOBLI,
SALIGRAMA TALUK-571603,
(PREVIOUSLY K.R.NAGAR TALUK)
MYSURU DISTRICT
3.
SMT.CHANDRAMMA
D/O LATE.VENKATESH
W/O KUMARA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
MARRURKAVULU,
KATTEMALALVADI POST-571134
HUNUASURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT
4.
SMT.SAVITHA
D/O LATE VENKATESH
W/O SRINIVASA
RES. No.3 AND 4 ARE
R/AT NERALE VILLAGE,
BIDARAKKA POST, HALLI MYSURU HOBLI,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUK-573211,
HASSAN-DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18-08-2026, AT ANNEXURE-D, IN
EX. NO-42-2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJANAGAR
ON
APPLICATION-I.A.NO-3,
UNDER
HC-KAR
SECTION 151 OF C.P.C, WHICH FILED BY THE RES. NO-1 AND
HEREIN,
FOR
SEEKING
ISSUANCE
OF
NECESSARY
DIRECTIONS TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SALIGRAM
POLICE STATION TO PROVIDE POLICE AID AND PROTECTION
FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed impugning the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in Execution No.42/2023 on I.A. No.3 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), whereby the Executing Court has directed the police to provide protection for effective implementation of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.38/2011 dated 06.04.2015, which came to be confirmed in R.A. No.11/2015 by order dated 02.03.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the pendency of the appeal against the decree sought to be executed, an order for police protection cannot be made. It is further submitted that, only in the event of violation of the
HC-KAR
decree, the permissible course of action is to order the civil imprisonment of the person violating the decree.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. The respondents herein instituted O.S. No.38/2011 seeking a decree of injunction, which came to be decreed on 06.04.2015, restraining the defendants, by way of permanent injunction, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs therein.
5. The petitioners herein, being unsuccessful before the trial Court, preferred R.A. No.11/2015, which came to be dismissed on 02.03.2023. It is submitted that the petitioners have preferred R.S.A. No.908/2023 against the said judgment and decree, and the same is pending consideration before this Court. Admittedly, there is no order of stay operating against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed in the first appeal.
HC-KAR
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the decree passed by the trial Court restraining the defendants, i.e., the petitioners herein, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property continues to remain in force and has been affirmed in appeal. Merely because a second appeal has been preferred, in the absence of any order of stay, the decree does not cease to operate.
7. The nature of the decree necessarily warrants appropriate police protection in the event of any violation or obstruction by the defendants. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the decrees passed by it are effectively implemented, and where such implementation is obstructed, necessary protection may be granted to secure the enforcement of the decree. A decree passed by a competent Court cannot be permitted to remain merely on paper.
8. In that view of the matter, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC by the Executing Court, for ensuring effective enforcement of the decree, cannot be said to be unjustified. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order.
HC-KAR
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32