1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA WRIT PETITION No.46721/2014 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: Smt.Thimmamma, W/o.S.Y. Thimmaiah, Aged about 67 years, Residing at Santhepete, Bettahallimutt Post, Hutridurga Hobli,Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 126. …PETITIONER (By Sri S.Chandrashekaraiah, Adv.) AND: 1. Sri Arethimmaiah, S/o. late Puttaswamaiah, Aged about 73 years, Residing at Hosapalya, Hamlet of Ippadi, Hutridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District – 572 126. 2. The Superintendent of Police, B.H.Road, Tumkur, Tumkur District – 572 103. 3. The Station House Office/ Police Sub Inspector, Kunigal Police Station, 2 Kunigal, Tumkur District – 572130. …RESPONDENTS (By Sri Vijaykumar A.Patil, HCGP for R2 & R3; R1 Dispensed with) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to order for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to give protection to petitioner and his family members and servants to cultivate the property bearing in Sy.No.391/4 situated at Ippadi Hutridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, measuring at extent of 0.36 ½ of guntas. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following: ORDER This writ petition was filed asking for a mandamus to give protection to the petitioner and his family members and his servants to cultivate the property bearing Sy. No.391/4 situated at Ippadi, Hutridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk. Relief sought is with reference to a decree passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Kunigal, in O.S. No.230/2013, on 13.11.2013, vide Annexure- A. 2. Learned counsel submitted that despite the Judgment and Decree as at Annexure-A, the police are not extending protection to the petitioner in the matter of 3 cultivation of the immovable property. When questioned as to whether the decree as at Annexure-A is executable or not, learned advocate rightly conceded that the said decree is an executable decree. 3. Police cannot execute the decree passed by the Civil Court. Execution has to be sought by the petitioner before the Court which passed the said decree. In the circumstances, this writ petition is misconceived. 4. At this stage, learned counsel submitted that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner to seek execution of the order before the Execution Court. In the result, writ petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to execute the decree, as at Annexure-A, by approaching the Court which passed the same. Sd/- JUDGE sac* .