Sri G Parameshwraiah vs Sri K G Chinne Gowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 5003 Kant

                             1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

      WRIT PETITION NO. 2392 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN

SRI G PARAMESHWRAIAH
S/O LATE SRI GURULINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/O SGP INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
HIREGOUJA VILLAGE AND POST
KM ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101

                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . SRI K G CHINNE GOWDA
    S/O LT GIDDE GOWDA
    AGED 59 YEARS
    R/O KALLUGUDDE
    MAVINA GUNI VILLAGE
    ANOOR POST
    CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
    CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101

2 . SRI K R BHARATH
    S/O SRI KRISHNA MURTHY
    AGED 45 YEARS
    R/O UPPALLI VILLAGE
    INDAVARA POST
    CHIKMAGALURU - 577101.
                                   2




                                           ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
26TH FEBRUARY, 2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU ON IA.NO.8 FILED UNDER
ORDER XXI, RULE 84, 86, 87 AND 71 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 AS PER ANNEXRUE-K (SEPARATE ORDER NOT
MADE,    HENCE   ENTIRE   ORDER    SHEET   PRODUCED)   AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13TH DECEMBER, 2021
PASSED    BY   THE  I   ADDITIONAL   SENIOR   CIVIL  JUDGE,
CHIKKAMGALURU ON I.A.NO.17 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ISSUING DIRECTION FOR ISSUANCE OF
SALE CERTIFICATE AS PER ANNEXURE-K (SEPARATE ORDER NOT
MADE, HENCE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET PRODUCED) AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

orders dated 26.02.2016 and 13.12.2021 passed in Execution

Case No.19 of 2014 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the applications.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 has

filed OS No.122 of 2010 on the file of the Trial Court, and the

said suit came to be allowed on 08.10.2010. Thereafter, the

decree holder has filed Execution Petition No.19 of 2014 before

the Trial Court. The Trial Court passed an order for public auction

of the suit schedule property. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

herein had purchased the schedule property as per the

registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.2020. It is further stated that

at the time of purchase, the schedule properties were mortgaged

to the Chikkamagaluru DCC Bank Ltd., Balehonnur Branch and

as such, the petitioner herein cleared the loan in respect of suit

schedule property and accordingly, the Bank has executed the

Release Deed, releasing the property in favour of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the respondent

No.1 herein trying to transfer the suit schedule property and as

such, on enquiry, the petitioner came to know about the

proceedings in Execution Case No.19 of 2014. In the said

Execution Petition, the attachment of the suit schedule property

was sought in the year 2015 and Sale Proclamation was issued

as per order dated 26.02.2016. Immediately, the petitioner took

steps to file applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151

of Code of Civil Procedure as per Annexures-N and P,

respectively. The Executing Court, by order dated 24.01.2022

rejected the applications and thereby, confirmed the Sale

Certificate as per the earlier order dated 13.12.2021. The

petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2016 with

regard to issuance of attachment and proclamation and the

order dated 13.12.2021 in respect of issuance of Sale Certificate,

approached this Court in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri Siddanooru Vishwanatha, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Shankaranarayana

Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.1/caveator.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and on careful perusal of the finding recorded by the

Trial Court, would indicate that the decree holder sought to

execute the judgment and decree passed in OS No.122 of 2010.

The decree holder was the highest bidder in the public auction

held by the court and he also deposited the auction amount. Sale

Certificate has been issued with regard to purchase of the

property in the court auction proceedings and therefore, I am of

the view that the petitioner herein has not made out a case for

interference in the order passed by the Trial Court, despite the

fact that the petitioner herein had purchased the property from

the judgment debtor by way of Sale Deed dated 11.06.2020

(Annexure-A) and in that view of the matter, I am of the view

that the Writ Petition is deserved to be dismissed, accordingly,

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SB