M/S SURANA JEWELLERS vs SRI COL. S. KUMAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9296 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
IN WP No. 9296/2026
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SURANA JEWELLERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE
PROPRIETRIX
SMT. VASANTHA SURANA,
W/O LATE SUMER SURANA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.6, WHEELER ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O MANGILAL, NO 1587,
T N H.B., AYAPPAKKAM, TIRUVALLUR,
TAMIL NADU-600 077
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI COL. S KUMAR
S/O MAJOR T.A. SUNDER RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
2. SMT MEERA. K,
W/O SRI S. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. SMT KANCHANA, K,
D/O SRI S. KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
AL. No.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 8/302,
CARLESTON ROAD, COOKE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005
4. SRI AJITH SURANA,
S/O LATE SUMER SURANA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
NO 6, WHEELER ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 005
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
25/02/2026, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU IN
EXECUTION PETITION NO.25131/2020 ON THE APPLICATION
MADE BY THE DECREE HOLDERS UNDER ORDER XLIV RULE
183 OF CPC, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-E., BY ALLOWING
THIS WRIT PETITION.
IN WP NO. 3267/2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SURANA JEWELLERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETIX
SMT.VASANTHA SURANA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
W/O LATE SUMER SURANA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.6 WHELER ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU -560005
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
C/O MANGILAL
NO.1587, T N H B
AYAPPAKKAM TIRUVALLUR,
TAMIL NADU -600 077
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI COLONEL S KUMAR
S/O MAJOR T A SUNDER RAJ
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SMT. MEERA K
W/O SRI. S KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SMT. KANCHANA K
D/O SRI. S KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
Sl. No.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.8/302, CARLESTON ROAD,
COOKE TOWN, BENGALURU- 560005
4. SRI AJITH SURANA
S/O LATE SUMER SURANA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
NO. 6 WHEELER ROAD,
FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU -560005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
R3 SERVED;
SRI SANJAY E., ADVOCATE FOR R4)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMMON IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 22.01.2025 WHICH IS
PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT
OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL AT BENGALURU (CCH-29) IN EXECUTION PETITION
NO.25131/2020 ON THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE DECREE
HOLDERS UNDER ORDER XXI RULE 43 READ WITH SECTION
151 OF CPC, PRODUCED AS PER ANNX-F UNDER SECTION 151
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRODUCED AS PER
ANNX-G BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
Writ Petition No.9296/2026 is filed impugning the order
dated 25.02.2026 passed on the application filed under Order
XLIV Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for
short, ‘CPC’), seeking to declare JDR-1 as an indigent person
and to drop the execution proceedings.
2. Writ Petition No.3267/2025 is filed impugning the order
dated 22.01.2025 passed on the application filed under Order
XXI Rule 43 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking attachment of the
movable properties of JDR-1 and police assistance.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree
in question has been passed against the petitioner and
respondent No.4. It is contended that the primary liability is
that of respondent No.4 and that, without initiating execution
proceedings against respondent No.4 to satisfy the decree, the
execution petition filed against the petitioner herein is not
maintainable.
4. It is further submitted that when JDR-1 claims to have no
means to satisfy the decree, the Executing Court ought to have
conducted an enquiry under Order XXXIII Rule 1A of the CPC,
and that, in the absence of such an enquiry, the application
ought not to have been rejected. It is also contended that, in
view of Order XXI Rule 43 of the CPC, the decree-holder is
required to satisfy the Court that the judgment-debtor has the
means to satisfy the decree. In the absence of such evidence,
the execution proceedings cannot be proceeded with against
the judgment-debtor.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the decree in question has been passed jointly and
severally against the petitioner and respondent No.4 for the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
amounts decreed, together with interest. Learned counsel
further submits that the prayer to declare the petitioner as an
indigent person was rejected by this Court in W.P.
No.3267/2025 by order dated 18.12.2025, while vacating the
interim order.
6. It is further submitted that an enquiry under Order XXXIII
Rule 1A of the CPC, as contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, is necessary when a suit is instituted seeking
such a declaration. With regard to the submission concerning
Order XXI Rule 43 of the CPC, learned counsel submits that the
said provision merely mandates that an opportunity be afforded
to the judgment-debtor and does not require an enquiry into
the financial capacity of the judgment-debtor to satisfy the
decree.
7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned orders.
8. The order dated 22.01.2025, which is the subject matter
of W.P. No.3267/2025, directs the issuance of a warrant of
attachment of movable properties and cannot be faulted. Once
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
an enforceable decree has been passed against the petitioner,
the issuance of a warrant of attachment, in the event of failure
to satisfy the decree, is a course of action available to the
Executing Court to enforce the decree. In that view of the
matter, this Court finds no error or infirmity in the impugned
order warranting interference.
9. Insofar as the order dated 25.02.2026, which is the
subject matter of W.P. No.9296/2026, is concerned, the Trial
Court rejected the prayer to declare the petitioner as an
indigent person in the absence of any material in support of the
said prayer.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has no means to satisfy the decree. However, the
said submission cannot be accepted in view of the description
of the petitioner in the cause title, wherein she is described as
the proprietrix of M/s. Surana Jewellers. Though it is pleaded
that no business is being carried on, no evidence has been
placed before the Court to substantiate the closure of the said
business. A business entity is required to be registered with the
tax authorities, and, upon discontinuance of the business, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
necessary steps for deregistration are required to be taken.
There is no document or other evidence to demonstrate that
the business carried on in the name of M/s. Surana Jewellers
has been deregistered.
11. The contention regarding Order XXXIII Rule 1A of the CPC
is also unsustainable. The enquiry contemplated thereunder
arises in the context of a suit instituted under Order XXXIII
Rule 1 of the CPC. In the present case, no such suit has been
instituted so as to necessitate an enquiry under Order XXXIII
Rule 1A of the CPC.
12. Insofar as Order XXI Rule 43 of the CPC is concerned, the
said provision prescribes the procedure for attachment of
movable property in execution of a decree. It does not
contemplate an enquiry into the means of the
petitioner/judgment-debtor to satisfy the decree. The
contention that such an enquiry is mandatory under the said
provision is, therefore, untenable.
13. The impugned orders have not been demonstrated to
suffer from any error or infirmity warranting interference by
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56301
WP No. 9296 of 2026
C/W WP No. 3267 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010205632026
this Court. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit.
Accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82