Karnataka High Court
WP/5022/2026 of SMT. MUTHAMMA Vs SRI. SHARAVANAMURTHY S on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010115732026 NC: 2026:KHC:52409 WP No. 5022 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 5022 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5022 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. MUTHAMMA
W/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563160.
ALSO AT: NO.204, A BLOCK,
SRIMITRA SPRING VALLEY APARTMENT,
KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMALARAM POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
2.
SRI. V. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.204, A BLOCK,
SRIMITRA SPRING VALLEY APARTMENT,
KAIKONDRAHALLI, CARMALARAM POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU -560035.
3.
SRI. V. SRINIVAS,
S/O. LATE VENAKTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O. NO.27B, GAYITHRI LAYOUT,
SARJAPURA ROAD, KAIDONDRAHALLI,
CARMALARAM POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU-560035.
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B
S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. RAJAMMA,
D/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY,
W/O. JAYARAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.318,
MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
RAILWAY STATION LAYOUT,
OUTER RING ROAD,
PANTHUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560103.
5.
SMT. NEELAMMA,
D/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY,
W/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.14,
GAYITHRI LAYOUT, SARJAPURA ROAD,
KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560035.
6.
SMT. PADMA,
D/O. LATE VENKATASWAMY,
W/O. GIRISH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563160.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHESH REDDY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. SHARAVANAMURTHY S
S/O LATE V. SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAJAMMAL NILAYAM,
D.V.G. ROAD, NARAYANAREDDY LAYOUT,
RAMAMURTHY NAGARA,
HC-KAR
2.
KUM. ASHWINI,
D/O LATE V. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THIMMAIAH K.H., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, AT KOLAR
IN EX.P. NO.110/2023 IN RESPECT OF I.A. NO.7 AND ALLOW THIS
PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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
Heard Sri.G.Mahesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.H.Thimmaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed impugning the order dated 06.01.2026 passed on I.A. No. III, filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), and I.A. No. VII, filed under Order XXI Rules 64 and
HC-KAR
66 of the CPC, whereby a sale proclamation has been issued in respect of 25 sites mentioned in the ‘B’ Schedule property in the deed of allocation dated 04.11.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the attachment was made in respect of the suit schedule property, namely, Sy. No. 41, measuring 3 acres and 20 guntas, whereas the sale proclamation under the impugned order is in respect of 25 sites formed therein, without even identifying the said sites. It is submitted that, in the absence of identification of the sites, further proceedings relating to valuation and sale cannot be proceeded with. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, supporting the impugned order, submits that, in view of the non-compliance with the decree, the Execution Court is justified in issuing a sale proclamation in respect of the sites formed in the suit schedule property.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
HC-KAR
6. The petitioners have suffered a decree, pursuant to which an execution petition has been filed seeking execution of the said decree. The execution proceedings have been opposed on the ground that a first appeal against the decree is pending.
7. It is submitted that the petitioners have a right to challenge the decree. It is to be noted that, though the Execution Court had initially ordered attachment of the suit schedule property, upon taking into consideration that the petitioners had entered into a joint development agreement for formation of sites and that certain sites were allotted to the petitioners/JDRs, it ordered issuance of a sale proclamation in respect of 25 sites out of the 46 sites allotted under the deed of allocation dated 04.11.2016.
8. The contention of the petitioners that the 25 sites have not been identified and, therefore, further proceedings in the execution petition cannot be proceeded with, is premature at this stage. It is also to be noted that, considering the possibility of recovering the decretal amount from the sale of 25 sites, though 46 sites were allotted, the sale proclamation has been issued only in respect of 25 sites. The right available to the
HC-KAR
petitioners to file an appeal against the decree cannot, by itself, be a ground to stall the execution proceedings. Mere contemplation or pendency of an appeal, unless the operation of the judgment and decree is stayed, cannot be construed as a ground to defer or obstruct the execution of the judgment and decree. This Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1