SMT VEEN PARANKUSH DAS vs M/S PEEYES WATCHES P LTD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT VEEN PARANKUSH DAS
W/O LATE PARANKUSH DAS
AGED 66 YEARS
R/AT 6TH CROSS
KUVEMPUNAGARA
TUMAKURU.

2. SMT. SUSHMA P DAS @ SUSHMA NAGARAJ
D/O LATE PARANKUSH DAS
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT NO.9811
SWEET MAPLE LANE
LAUREL, MD 207723
USA.

PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2
ARE REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. M S GOVINDARAJ
S/O DR M R SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2(33/1)
TH ST
4 CROSS, 1 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
…PETITIONERS











Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka

(BY SRI. GURU PRASANNA S., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



AND:

M/S PEEYES WATCHES (P) LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.39/C2 KIADB INDUSTRIAL
AREA HIREHALLI,
TUMAKURU
REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTORS
SRI KRISHNAIAN CHETTY
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A.
DATED 20.04.2024 FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 29 CPC IN
ND
EX.CASE 53/19 ON THE FILE OF 2 ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TUMAKURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND
APPLICATION MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED, ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed impugning the order dated
05.08.2024 passed on the interlocutory application filed
under Order XXI Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the said application has
been rejected.
2. Heard Sri.Guru Prasanna.S., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.Veerabhadraiah,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Sri. A.R.
Parankush Das, the erstwhile partner of Judgment Debtor
No.1-firm, who retired from the partnership firm on
28.04.2002. It is submitted that the cause of action for
filing the suit, which has culminated in the decree, arose
subsequent to the date of his retirement. Accordingly, it is
contended that the decree passed in the suit is not binding

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



on the retired partner and, consequently, on his legal
heirs.
3.1. It is further submitted that, though the written
statement filed by Judgment Debtor No.2 was not taken
on record by the Trial Court, the written statement of
Judgment Debtor No.3 categorically admits that Judgment
Debtor No.2 had retired from the partnership firm on
24.08.2002. It is, therefore, contended that the decree
cannot be enforced against the legal heirs of Judgment
Debtor No.2.
3.2. It is further submitted that the property under
attachment is the self-acquired property of Judgment
Debtor No.2(a), the wife of deceased Judgment Debtor
No.2. It is submitted that an application was filed seeking
stay of the execution proceedings insofar as the property
in question is concerned, particularly in view of the
pendency of O.S.No.789/2022, wherein the petitioners

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



have sought a declaration that the decree in question is
not binding on them or on the suit schedule property.
3.3. Learned counsel further submits that, in any
event, when an objection is raised with regard to the
enforceability of the decree against the property in
question, the Executing Court is required to adjudicate
upon such objection in terms of Section 47 and Order XXI
Rule 20 of the CPC. It is submitted that, when sufficient
assets of the firm are available for satisfaction of the
decree, proceeding against the property of the petitioners
without first proceeding against such assets is contrary to
the provisions of Order XXI Rules 49 and 50 of the CPC.
3.4. It is further submitted that whether the
property in question is the self-acquired property of
Judgment Debtor No.2(a) is a matter requiring enquiry,
which ought to have been undertaken in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 47 of the CPC. It is submitted
that, if the attachment and sale of the property in question

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



are permitted, the very purpose of the objections raised by
the petitioners and the suit in O.S. No.789/2022 would
stand defeated.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that Judgment Debtor No.2 had
appeared in the suit which culminated in the decree and
had not raised any objection with regard to his status as a
partner of Judgment Debtor No.1-partnership firm. It is
submitted that mere recording of the retirement of
Judgment Debtor No.2 is not sufficient unless notice is
issued to the Registrar of Firms, as required under Section
63 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932.
4.1. It is further submitted that, when the
continuation of Judgment Debtor No.2 as a partner was
never disputed during his lifetime, it is not open to his
legal heirs to raise such an issue at the stage of execution.
It is submitted that the decree holding the partnership
firm and its partners jointly and severally liable to satisfy

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



the decree has attained finality. In view of the decree
fastening joint and several liability upon all the parties, the
question of preference in the execution of the decree
would not arise.
4.2. It is further submitted that the mere assertion
that the property in question is the self-acquired property
of Judgment Debtor No.2(a) is not sufficient to stay the
execution proceedings insofar as the said property is
concerned. It is submitted that even in O.S. No.789/2022,
there is no prayer seeking a declaration that the property
in question is the self-acquired property of Judgment
Debtor No.2(a). Accordingly, it is submitted that the
impugned order is justified and does not warrant
interference.
5. Considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for both the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. It is evident from the decree passed in O.S.
No.137/2007 that Judgment Debtor No.2 had participated

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



in the suit through counsel, and the written statement filed
belatedly was rejected, which order has attained finality.
The decree dated 03.11.2016 fastened joint and several
liability upon all the defendants to pay the decretal
amount.
6.1. It is not in dispute that Judgment Debtor No.2
was alive as on the date of the decree and that he died on
22.06.2018. During his lifetime, the status of Judgment
Debtor No.2 as a partner of Judgment Debtor No.1-
partnership firm was never disputed. The decree holding
Judgment Debtor No.2 jointly and severally liable was
accepted and has attained finality.
6.2. In the execution proceedings, it is not open to
the petitioners to raise the issue as to whether Judgment
Debtor No.2 was a partner of Judgment Debtor No.1-
partnership firm. Further, whether the proceedings said to
have recorded his retirement from the partnership firm
were given effect to is not forthcoming from the record.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



6.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently contended that, when the properties of the
firm are available, it is not open to the decree holder to
choose to proceed against the properties of the
petitioners. The said contention is based on Order XXI
Rules 49 and 50 of the CPC.
6.4. In support of the above submissions, reliance is
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal
Gangaram and Others [AIR 1960 SC 388] . On a close
perusal of Order XXI Rules 49 and 50 of the CPC, read
with the judgment relied upon, it is evident that there is
neither any mandate nor any prescription requiring
preference to be given in proceeding against particular
assets where the decree fastens joint and several liability.
6.5. The objection raised to the execution of the
decree against the property in question is on the ground
that the same is the self-acquired property of Judgment

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



Debtor No.2(a). Whether the property in question is the
self-acquired property of Judgment Debtor No.2(a), or
whether it can otherwise be proceeded against in
execution of the decree, was never the subject matter of
adjudication in any of the earlier proceedings. It is only
upon institution of the execution proceedings and the
decree holder seeking to proceed against the said property
that the occasion arose for the petitioners to raise the plea
that the property is self-acquired.
6.6. Section 47 of the CPC mandates the Executing
Court to determine all questions arising between the
parties to the suit, or their representatives, and relating to
the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
Undoubtedly, the question as to whether the property in
question is the self-acquired property of Judgment Debtor
No.2(a) is an issue that is required to be determined by
the Executing Court.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



6.7. No doubt, for a similar relief, the petitioners
have instituted a separate suit. The prayer seeking a
declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.137/2007 is
not binding on the suit schedule property substantially
covers the grievance raised by the petitioners. If the
execution proceedings are permitted to continue without
exercising the power under Order XXI Rule 29 of the CPC,
resulting in the sale of the property in question, and if O.S.
No.789/2022 is ultimately decreed, the rights of the
petitioners would be defeated.
6.8. Though the Executing Court has taken note of
the claim that the property in question is the self-acquired
property of Judgment Debtor No.2(a), the said contention
has been rejected for want of evidence. Determination of
the said issue would require a detailed enquiry.
6.9. Though learned counsel for the respondent is
justified in contending that the decree fastens joint and
several liability upon all the judgment debtors, the

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



availability of properties belonging to the firm or the other
partners is not in dispute. Pending adjudication of O.S.
No.789/2022, the execution proceedings insofar as Item
No.3 of the execution schedule is concerned are required
to be kept in abeyance to preserve the subject matter of
the suit. In that view of the matter, the Executing Court
has committed an error in not entertaining the application.
7. In view of the above, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed .
ii) The order dated 05.08.2024 is set aside.
iii) The application filed under Order XXI Rule
29 read with Section 151 of CPC in
Execution Case No.53/2019, pending
nd
before the 2 Additional Senior Civil Judge
and C.J.M., Tumakuru is hereby allowed.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53842
WP No. 139 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010006512025



iv) Proceedings in Execution Case
nd
No.53/2019, pending before the 2
Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M.,
Tumakuru, are stayed till disposal of O.S.
No.137/2007.

Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE




DH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3