IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.114 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI. D.C. MOHAN S/O SRI. PATEL CHIKKANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. DEVARUNDA VILLAGE AND POST, GONIBEEDU HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132. (By Mr. PRADEEP NAIK K, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. SEETHAMMA W/O LATE SRI. D.R. GOPALA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SRI. D.G. SHESHADRI S/O LATE SRI. D.R. GOPALA BHAT AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
3. D.G. SHWETHA D/O LATE SRI. D.R. GOPALA BHAT AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4. D.G. KRISHNA S/O LATE SRI. D.R. GOPALA BHAT AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DEVARUNDA VILLAGE & POST GONIBEEDU HOBLI … PETITIONER MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. B.R. VISHWANATH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R4) - - -
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8-2- 2013 PASSED IN EX.NO.62/2006 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALUR, CLOSING THE E.P. BY ORDER TO PAY THE DEPOSIT BALANCE OF RS.42,719/- & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.R.Vishwanath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Heard on the question of admission. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In this petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the executing Court by which the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the decree holder/auction purchaser viz., respondent No.2 and the execution petition has been closed.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a decree for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- was passed in favour of respondent No.2. When the said proclamation was issued, the petitioner filed an objection under Order XXI Rule 89 & 90 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short). However, the same was rejected by an order dated 11.01.2013 and subsequently on 08.02.2013, the execution proceedings has been closed. It is further submitted that the executing court has permitted the decree holder to participate in the auction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order.
4. I have considered the submission made on both the sides. The order dated 11.01.2013 reads as under:
“DHR present JDR absent.
Order pronounced in open court vide separate order ORDER I.A.No.5 filed by the judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 89 and 90 r/w Section 151 CPC is rejected. No costs.”
5. Though the aforesaid order has not been challenged specifically in this revision petition. However, this Court in exercise of suo motu powers can take cognizance of the aforesaid order, which has been passed preceding the impugned order dated 08.02.2013. The objection filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 89 & 90 read with Section 151 of the Code has been rejected in a cryptic and cavalier manner by a non-speaking order by the Trial Court. It is well settled law that Supreme Court in the case of ‘S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India’, (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that the decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration.
In view of above enunciation of law, the impugned orders dated 11.01.2013 and 08.02.2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. They are accordingly quashed and set aside. The Executing Court is directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner and adjudicate the same after hearing the parties.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ss