IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 54241 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SMT. REJIMA W/O M VENKATESH MURHTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.36, KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE-560054 ... PETITIONER (By Sri.D.DHARMESH, ADV. FOR SRI. RAVIKUMARA.B.R, ADV. ) AND 1. SADIKA LOGISTICS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN BY ITS PROPRIET SUNEETHA D/O B K JAYANAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.48, 2ND MAIN LAZAR LAYOUT, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-560005 2. TYCOON TRADERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. VENKATESH MURHTY OFF.AT NO.477 5TH MAIN, DOLORS COLONY RMV 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560094 3. VENKATESH MURTHY S/O MUNIYAPPA POORNIMA BUILDING NO.24/1, IST FLOOR HMT MAIN ROAD NEAR RAMAIAH COLLEGE BUS STOP BANGALORE-560054.
... RESPONDENTS (By SMT.LEELA P.DEVADIGA, ADV. FOR SRI. A.K.SUBBAIAH, ADV. FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-9) AT BANGALORE IN EX.CASE NO.3497/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE IA NO.5 I.E. ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. A.Dharmesh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Leela P.Devadiga, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the trial Court, by which the application under Order XXI Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Executing Court summarily.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the co-owner of the property in question, which is a residential property and the aforesaid fact is admitted by the decree holder in paragraph 5 of the statement of objections and therefore, no enquiry in the case was necessary. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Executing Court.
4. From perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court, I find that aforesaid submissions were not made before the Executing Court. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file objections on the aforesaid grounds. Needless to state that if such objections are filed by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the Executing Court, before finalizing the sale in question, shall decide the objections preferred by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of such objections, after hearing the parties, by a speaking order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.