logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 Kar HC 133 print Preview print Next print
Case No : Writ Petition No. 20161 Of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Parties : M/s. Samridddhi Petro Products Private Limited, Represented By Its Manager, Dasari Raveendra Krishna, Hyderabad Versus R. Jayanna & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Anoop Haranahalli, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R8, V. Vinay, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 05-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 KHC 6886,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Order XXI Rule 97 CPC

2. Catch Words:
- Limitation
- Execution
- Obstruction / Obstructor
- Possession
- Rent

3. Summary:
The petition under Article 227 challenges an order dated 25‑06‑2025 directing the petitioner‑obstructor to vacate his belongings within 15 days, despite a pending application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. The petitioner argues that lack of permission from the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization prevented compliance. The court notes the interim order of 08‑07‑2025 that stayed demolition pending further hearing. It reserves liberty for the petitioner to seek an extension of time and condonation of delay before the executing court, allowing respondents to object. The trial court is directed to decide any such application within one month of filing, excluding the period from 08‑07‑2025 to 05‑02‑2026 for limitation purposes. Consequently, the petition is disposed of without granting any substantive relief.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 25.06.2025 in Execution No.1810/2023 on the file of XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (vide Annexure-A).)

Oral Order

1. This petition by the obstructor in Ex.No.1810/2023 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Executing Court) is directed against the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 whereby the Executing Court directed the petitioner- obstructor to remove his belongings and installations without disposing of the obstructor application dated 17.02.2025 filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.9 is dispensed with.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 8 - Decree Holders instituted the impugned execution proceedings in Ex.No.1810/2023 arising out of a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.304/2019 dated 11.02.2023. In the said execution proceedings, the Executing Court issued arrest warrant as against respondent No.9, who was the sole Judgment Debtor and the matter was posted on 17.02.2025, on which date the petitioner herein filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC claiming to be an obstructor/objector. Though the said application was still pending consideration, the Executing Court passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 directing the petitioner to remove his belongings within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, failing which he was liable to pay rent from 04.06.2025 till he removes his belongings and installations by holding as under:

          "Counsel for objectors submits that Decree-Holder has not let the objector to remove the belongings and installations.

          The objector was permitted to remove his belongings and installations and Decree-Holder is not liable to get any permission as stated by counsel for objector. Any delay in removing the belongings and installations which will postpone the handing over the possession then objector is liable to pay the rent. With this observation objector is directed to remove his belongings and installations within 15 days from the date of this order failing which he is liable to pay rent from 04.06.2025 to till he removes his belongings and installations.

          For compliance, by 10.07.2025."

4. On 08.07.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:

          "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the fight between the decree holder and the judgment debtor, he is caught in the crossfire. The petitioner runs Petro Products Private Limited in a property owned by the decree holder and who has now sought that the eviction of the petitioner should happen for demolition of the petrol pump in the said property.

          The learned counsel submits that a bare minimum of 4 months or 5 months is required to remove the entire petroleum products and to give the vacant possession to the decree holder. It is not that they are wanting to squat over the property.

          Placing the submission on record, the demolition of the petitioner's / objector's property shall not be undertaken till the next date of hearing.

           In that light the order dated 25.06.2025 shall remain as on date."

5. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and on account of lack / want of permission granted in favour of the petitioner by Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), the petitioner could not remove his belongings as directed by the Executing Court in the impugned order. It is therefore submitted that the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Executing Court for extension of time and condoning delay in removing the belongings and that the Executing Court may be directed to dispose of the said application to be filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the respondents are not aggrieved by the impugned order permitting the petitioner to remove his belongings, in the event, if any application for extension of time / condonation of delay is filed by the petitioner, the petitioner would be liable to pay rent and respondents would file objections to the said application and the Executing Court may be directed to dispose of the said application, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions.

7. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

          (i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

          (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file application seeking extension of time / condonation of delay in removing the belongings beyond the stipulated period of 15 days as indicated in the impugned order.

          (iii) In the event the petitioner files such an application before the Executing Court, the respondent Nos.1 to 8 would be entitled to file their objections and the Trial Court shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law within a period of one month from 10.02.2026.

          (iv) Since the present petition was filed on 08.07.2025, the entire period from 08.07.2025 till this day i.e., 05.02.2026 shall stand excluded for the purpose of considering the application to be filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court.
 
  CDJLawJournal