IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS. 3811-3812 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI YOGESH R, SON OF LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.305, NITISH CENTRAL PARK, B BLOCK, 1ST MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR NEAR BSF, IAF POST, BENGALURU-560063.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI S NAGARAJ, SON OF Y C SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT BABANAGAR, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560063.
2. SRI JEELANI A K, S/O LATE ABDUL KHALAK, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.126, 9TH CROSS, 'DIYA MARVEL', YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064.
AMENDED AS V.C.O. DATED 20.03.2019.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N SUBBASHASTRY FOR C/R1; SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESHWARA U, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.1.2018 PASSED AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE SALE IN FAOUR OF THE HIGHEST BIDDER IN EX NO.9/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU, AS FOUND IN ANNEXURE-AD TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the judgment debtor in Execution No.9/2012 arising out of the judgment & decree in O.S. NO.1107/2009 filed by the first respondent is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 11.01.2018 a copy whereof is at Annexure-AD whereby, the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, has confirmed the auction sale of the subject property in favour of the second respondent – highest bidder.
2. After service of notice, the first respondent decree holder and the second respondent - auction purchaser have entered appearance through their respective learned counsel who together resist the writ petitions.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter because:
a) Petitioner having suffered the judgment & decree dated 03.11.2011 in O.S.No.1107/2009, challenged the same in RFA No.549/2012 which came to be disposed in terms of a Joint Memo dated 25.10.2013; he has not adhered to the terms of this Joint Memo on which the judgment of this Court in the RFA is founded; thus, he has driven second respondent – decree holder to file Execution No. 9/2012; this conduct of petitioner falls militantly short of a scrupulous litigant and therefore such a person cannot be granted reprieve at the hands of Writ Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India;
b) the money suit of the first respondent in O.S.No.1107/2009 having been contested, came to be decreed on 03.11.2011; since the filing of the suit, a decade has expired in the guise of RFA by the petitioner, and the Execution No.9/2012 by the first respondent – Decree holder herein; it only reminds what the Privy Council in its decision dated 21.03.1872 in the case of THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RAJ DURBHUNGA, UNDER THE COURT OF WARDS Vs. MAHARAJAH COOMAR RAMAPUT SINGH has held that in India, “the difficulties of a litigant begin when he has obtained a Decree”; and, c) in the execution of the decree, the subject auction was ordered to be held on 08.09.2017 the second respondent being the highest bidder deposited 25% of the bid amount on the same day and the remainder i.e., Rs.1,05,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore and Five Lakh] only was paid on 10.01.2018; the executing court by the impugned order has confirmed the auction sale after rejecting the oral Objections offered by the petitioner – judgment debtor; even the Objection the National Highway Authority had not paid the compensation amount to him was also found to be an excuse inasmuch as, the amount payable as compensation under the award was only Rs.35,00,000/- which was falling much short of the decreetal sum with interest accruing thereon.
In the above circumstances, these petitions being devoid of merits fail, and accordingly are dismissed.
The executing Court shall process the matter further expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Bsv Sd/- JUDGE