nc was man comer or mmaruu. AT mun nus 'ms 2513 mm or 'A 5 » "ms Homsm aux. JUSTICE: . T mm Horrnw nut. wan' <!l_g_._._ BETWEEN: B.CJ.Jambunath£a,; .._ S/0 Aged about 45 V -- ' R*1i1"V€*YC°11i1'&¢3_K?r: . ._ C/0 Ga;1gana}a_1tte"'1V $_idd.appa.,' shivanuaya, mm; Nc1:,164S,l_1 19,. 9"' Cross, Vi(i;.<a1nesg;:§1*, ' navmanns - 4-,_ * V. " (By Sri--.fV.P.I~i'11I1(AaI'.:t3i,--":}'tdv.) 'A %%%%% 14 . C . Lfiiicshappa, " 'S/"o._'Cha.miabasaQpa, Aged'~abo;fl"'48 Years," V_ E_;.. . IJ£s'VA.!i'GERE unux as nxficr. Kailépfia, A 'T ._S/o Ramappa,_ H * ._ Aged about 6'?' Years, R] 0 Axlajancya Nagara, Kariganur Cmss, DAVANGERE TALUK & DISTRICT. .. B£8 *_'Ir_'§_'i"__'k__ i__i_i' ifi! ' \..--/' 3. Faptsofthecaseitishortareasunden' ~ " A " V vvrfioyakonda ._ £)atéa:;gefe _ was brought to sale by 'Respondent No.1 herein u
had brought in action _agai__1;st W
recovery of a sum of , .’
with interest and costs.v”V.7I:’i1e =w$a.~§ V’
decreed by the ‘I’1V’ia.1_L E'{_M)*:1rt..V’
failed to pay the iobviously
the decree by
respondent ” Holder. In
execu*tio;1 ofqflie belonging to
19/P-2 and
” fl ‘ ” é ” V’ V situated at
imea£§o.15i13;g= . V–.,.~ac*r:es’
Hobli,
p1;b1ic,_ ugh Court. Respondent
No.2 l’;t’iz’ein._, ‘being the highest bfider and
having o___§1’eposited the entim sum of
}§;s.._1,50,000/ ~, was deolaxed to be successful
}3»4iVt1@3_’t§”?’«_1x..”. Bid was knocked down in his favour.
certificate was aiso issued in his favour.
Later on the appellant — Judgment
Debtor filed an application unéer Order 21,
Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure with a
prayer that the sale knocked down in favour
of respondent N012 be set aside_. The
wa
Executing Court allowed: the appiicationv
respondent No.22 auction A ‘
order dated 01.08.2605.
application before: the Executing’–{3c3u.Iif£ a_
prayer 1:0 permit: ‘to
Rs.1,S0,0(}(}/~ deposited°by hii:n tagethar =
interest. The Executjzlg
bath sides passed ‘.:1’iéV..c_V)’A1’c?.:r
dimcting thsé gppefiéht gmcnt V to
pay interest””m§ ~r11:-%_15§:;;~n “5£’;’%2%:§:;.%»2.,5o,ooc/- to
respondezrzt ffrcém deposit till
it ~;m:;;.T,%;¢:cm;2;1;..-v; the Court at
gI.I’:Vlf.’I’. I7&:t.'(‘.?” ‘ _It” §va:a”.’ this order passed
H which was the
._ :~3-11V1§j%:.ct__v’matEsi*’vv–Qf~ cfliailenge, by filing Writ
V’ Pstitiafi’ .i:i1d¥m:_:”A:fic1es 212.6 and :22′? 0f the
L«:*:o;1%st:u:,:m cf India before laamed Single
dmisfi-%
Learned Single? Judge after considering
« “_”_v.tI1’n’.::””ifzatter from all angies came to the
‘_§:%3i1c1usic>n that them was 1:20 merit or
substance in this Writ Petiticn.
Same was
accoiflingly dismissed, giving rise to filing of
the presant appaa} before us.
s.
‘=.__s?;andss.’a:i’s;*é:€r¢§§v Eéjftkze jmlgment of the Supreme Caurt reported
‘Am 193$-jsizpaanaz COURT 2221 [HJHDI pm;
ms ARGTE-IE8. Vs. M13. G.K.BRO’!”HERS Am:
gm_.am m
5
4. Even theugh the lealamd 00111136} for appellant iriczi to argue
befom us that there was ab seluteiy 110 legal justzification on the
part of the Executing Court to haw sadtiled him gméyrmcnt of
interest as it was ‘aha duty of the auction tI2c
Executing Cceurt to have pm 2116*. amount in
bank in a fixeti rieposit 50 $1133; it c;f;u1c1 havé’ b’lfi:.
we are neither canvixzcafi mar; ssatisfiiid ‘wit}:1 A ajgumgxits. In
other words, it was ce2″;te11d<-2d f{'§z9;f'f0r flié'.défaI11t Qf the auction
purchaser or the C:ourit;¢_:1c: be fastened on the
appellant.
5. Some j:1:«igfl’J1€:}’1tS”‘::.i’. of High Court of Bombay
and this wcm fizz}:-:a_;<V:*V:':Va:§ béfore us, {G press this paint.
6. I~I§%;v’evé;;__: {1′.éé%’ ¢.:::iu.:-=§5’ziéf;v11 that has been projected in this appeal
5
7. Enfar::$;, an the s’:r:%12gfl:: of ‘£116 mtio decidenfii of this case,
lemnad Si3:1g1€ Judge ;22*s:.scra£-dd ts; éismiss the appeQant’s Writ
Petitioli. W6 are’: £22 {:12} agreemezst with the I’€aso11.3V~ ;;§::~§i;,,3J;1ed by
Eeanaed Singie Judge am} E2125 that 39 case for was
mafia GUI. ;’%.ppm} being rcimrasici G§fi1§§fiS, is ” *
%
Judgé
AGV.