...1.. IN THE HIGH OOUR1' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE nxmn TI-£18 THE 1511* DAY or nmcmmmn BEFORE THE HOITBLE MKJUBTICE n.s. V' ' wan' PET!'rI=0l|l nmsooo 0': . ' T T BE1WEEN: A.G.RamakrisI111a, S/0 late A.G.Gopa]ak1ish1_La, Aged about 53 years, ' . E Residing at No.92, " ' - ' "Vasavi" 3"' Cross, V Budda Marga, Vidjxénagmé; " " ' V. Hassan - 573 261. % .1; 9371110323 (By Sri MP. AND: 1. H.?.sé:ngappa,-- : S10 "3: Cvoitda, Aged aboum 5'cS.trs."v_ * " R[g§; Koflahalli Village,' Mat2asagar.Post, ~~~~~ , 'sakaleshpura Taluk, _ _ iffiisitxfict. 2. Auto Finance C($rp01_'7ai:is;\3i (R), Cbjkkahasti Road, AA Hassan; by 11:8 Managing _I)irector. ' 'I*e'Ij:§§.Tat Coffee Limited, * :Po111betta, Virajpet Taiuk, Dréstrict, ' Rep. by its Manager. U 4. A.G.I&/Iarzjunath, Major, R/0 Door No.40, I Stage, Vijayanagara Extension, Hassan. RESPONDEHTS (By Sri S.N.Hatti, Adv. for CI R1 R-3 is served, Notice to R4 is ciispensed With) This Writ Petition is filed. under A1tic1es.23-'.2.(:3_:':e35 .oi'.. Constitution of India praying to set"as1;de--_' the Aotder-j<:§.at:s:d ' 03.03.2007 Annexure-G oonfixming the of in mspect of the 1" respondent pa$3sed_ "in
No.196/2001 and etc.
‘Finis Petition comm’ g on 1’n§§13.? ‘ this day,
the Courtmade thcfo1IoWfing:~
1. Challenge this “the order dated
93.03.2007 at the order dated
VBy Annexure~G – order,
the in execution of the decree
obtained .(_’);S.Ni:,4’4;{ confirmed. By Annexure-R –
oxtier..;e;iplications_V_Vi.A.Ne-5.2 and 3 filed by the petitioner herein
10 CPC to come on record as additional
No.20] 2007 and under Sectinn
_ 151 “CFC to postpone the delivery of possession of the
H H to the sale conducted are dismissed.
‘Petitioner claims to be the bmther of the judgment debtor
T “Who has suffered the decree and against whom execution
” proceeding in Execution Petition No.196/ 2001 was instituted.
.. 3 ..
The execution petition. was filed on 19.12.2001 for recovery of a
sum of Rs.4,25,0’73/– pursuant to the decree passed in
{).S.No.44[19’98. The property was sold ofiier
passed by the Executing Court on. 18. 12.2003-‘eforv
Rs.4,50,000/-. The decreetal amo1m’t–as on was
Rs.5,l7,170/-. The sale came to
and the sale certificate was issfi’5a’~~Pn “After the’
sale was confirmed and sale cer&1tc’s.fe”–~v§ras ‘is’s11.ed,A..the decree
holder filed Misceiianeotiistt T A. delivery of
possession. In the petifioner
herein 2″ ffor and for
postpongéfiiefiteeof xespeetively.
3. It was eéeonteildedt applicant – petitioner herein in
those4.aj’>plica*tz5oi;sV_V_Vth’at payment of the decneetal amount
in the couzse of the execution proceedings
of Rs.75,00{}/- was required to be
_ paidtin ,ti1st,aI11neI1ts and because of the death of the father
_§udgmefit debtor could not pay the amount. The applicant —
_ j3eVtiti-flier herein also stated that he was ready to pay
R_s.}4,?5,000/- as one time settlement and hence the prayer
tmade for bringing him on record as additional Iespondent and
for postponement of delivexy of possession may be aflowed. It
…. 4 ….
was also stated in the affidavits filed that a sum of
Rs.1,(}G,O0(}/—- was already paid by the petitioner and
members. The Court below has dismissed
applications. Aggrieved by the same, the pxesezif u
is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the eetllfioner since
part payment of the decfeetal as the
petitioner who is none the judgment
debtor was due along with
interest, the allowed the applications.
He at Rs.4,25,073 I - was for a lower value of the property was more lakhs.
Afar the caveator – respondent supports the order
;o:igse’cl % below.
heaztl the learned counsel for the parties and on
«perusal of the materials on record, I find that there is
___”‘l’.ahlshe1ute1y no locus stagudi or justzifieation for the petitioner
.4 to prefer applicafions in I.A.Noe.2 and 3 when once the
sale was eonfinzaed and sale oertjficate was issued. As the facts
_. 5 ..
would reveal the saie was conducted on 18.12.2003 and the
confirmation was made on 03.03.2007. What remnjns’wVae;’o_n1y
delivery of possession. When the decree _
Miseenaneous Case in Misc.No.2€)/2007 se¢.1m.;},ff .c1eti3j;exy ..
possession, the petitioner claiming
judgment debtor has come forward tvso ,
setting up certain payments paet~ endtjof alleged
understanding that the oedtseeeived and
the property shouldbe 1eftA3?vv_ittt_Vttte also urged that
the whereaboutsof was not found
and that the is entitled. to succeed
to the debtor who has not Left
behind except the mother and
bzothers. _V
‘V gfiotujt betowifhas rightly rejected these applications. It
in exercise of the writ jurisdiction to
entertain s_11eh’3._eiojms as there is no apparent error or error of
.44_’j1}.,risdiction’;.iI1 the order passed by the com below. In the light
dfinclings recorded by the Court below and in View of what
been stated by me earlier, the challenge made to the order
ddveonfirming the sale cannot be sustained. Though allegations
are made against Iesponder1ts- 1 and 2 herein that they colluded
.. 6 _
together in getting the sale confirmed, it is not the cencern of
the petitioner as he has failed to take any timety actio,n_Vete’epme
on record or to participate in the proceedings. The;”éu;iff_£s: e.t’:,1:;’_l1e%_
year 1998, the decree is passed on ‘is.
conducted as back as on 18.12.2003.
and proper to interfere with themfcler Chg-.1i’ee§§e.: i1§nc¢;_
the writ petition is dismissed.
_ A sd/.." PKS