Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
W.P.No.5275/2016 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI D.JAYADEVA RAO S/O. LATE. T.DEVOJI ROAD, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, # 1151, 2ND MAIN, 5TH STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU 560098.
... PETITIONER (By Sri.B.V.ANANDA, ADV.)
AND
SRI D. EKANATH S/O. LATE. T.DEVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, GURUNIVAS, OPP: BALASINGHS HOUSE, V.V. EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU DISTRICT 2. SRI D. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O. LATE. T. DEVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, # 2277, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KEELUKOTE EXTENSION, KOLAR 563101 3. D. AMARNATH S/O. LATE. T. DEVOJI RAO,
2 AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, # 338, 11TH-A-CROSS, 17TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU 560028 4. D.GNANESHWARA S/O LATE T.DEVOJI RAO, AGED AOBUT 67 YEOARS, DEEPAK FNCY STORES, NEAR S.S.V. HOTEL, DODDAPET, KOLAR-563 101 5. D.TUKARAM S/O LATE DEVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AMAR TAILORS, BIG BAZAR, KOLAR-562 101. 6. D.MANJUNATH S/O LATE DEVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, #1595, PANDURANGA VITTAL, NEAR S.S.V. HOTEL, DODDAPET CROSS, BIG BAZAR, KOLAR-563 101. 7. D.SURESH S/O LATE DEVOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AMAR TAILORS, BIG BAZAR, KOLAR-563 101. 8. K.PRAVEEN S.RAO, S/O LATE D SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOAUT 49 YEARS, # 201, BHORA MANSION, MALNCHA ROAD, KHARAGPUR, WEST BENGAL-721304. 9. K.SUSHEELA S.RAO D/O LATE D SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, #201, BHORA MANSION, MALNCHA ROAD,
3 KHARAGPUR, WEST BENGAL-721 304. 10. SMT.RAJAMMA C/O R.M.SHANTA BAI, # 3 D BLOCK, INCOME TAX COLONY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-01. 11. SMT.LEELA BAI W/O P.MUNIDEVA RAO, DEAD BY HER LRS, A) M.SHYAM SUNDAR BABU, S/O LATE P.MUNIDEVARAO, B)M.SURESH S/O LATE P.MUNIDEVA RAO, C)M.JAYARAM S/O LATE P.MUNIDEVA RAO, (A) TO (C) R/AT #229, 1ST STAGE, 5TH CROSS, OPP. CANARA BANK, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSORE. 12. SMT.SARASWATHI @ RAJESHWARI C/O LATE S.RAJA RAO, LAKSHMI NIVAS, CHURCH ROAD, COONOOR, TAMILNADU-642 101 13. SMT.LALITA BAI W/O K.VITTAL RAO, DEAD BY HER LRS, (A) V.RUKMANGADA RAO, DEAD BY LRS, (i)K.SHASHIKALA, W/O RUKAMANGADA RAO,
4 (ii)R.ROOPASHRE D/O RUKMANGADA RAO, (iii)R.PADMASHREE D/O RUKMANGADA RAO, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 13(a) (i to iii) R/AT ROOPASHREE NILAYA, OPP. IYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE, COLLEGE ROAD, M.V.EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE. (B)K.V. RAMCHANDRA RAO (C)K.V. SRINIVASA RAO (B) & (C) ARE R/O DARZIPET, OLD POST OFFICE ROAD, HOSAKOTE,
SMT. TARABAI W/O. N.M. SHANTOJI RAO, (DEAD BY LRS)
(A) N.S. SHANKAR RAO, SHANKAR TAILOR, BAZAR STREET, MULABAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT 1(B) N.S. PRAKASH RAO # 100, SNEHA, 14TH -D-CORSS, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE, WCR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560080 (C)N.S. LAKSHMINARAYAN @ KANTH DESIGNER STICH WEAR, # 243, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STATGE, K.H.B. COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU 560079
(D) N.S PRASANA # 100, 14TH D-CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND STATGE, 2ND PHASE, WCR, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560080
5 (E) N.S.SHEKAR # 100, ‘SNEHA’ 14TH D CROSS, 1ST FLOOR 2ND STAGE, WCR MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU 80
SMT. D.ANASUYA W/O. M. BALAKRISHNA RAO, LIC AGENT, BEHIND CHURCH, HULIYURU ROAD, HIRIYURU 572143 16. SMT. D. SHAKUNTALA C/O. N.L. VENKOBARAO, NAVALE NILAYA, # 110/88, BEHIND M.M. CHOULTRY, KRISHNAARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU 560036
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN] AT KOLAR DTD.3.12.2015 IN FDP 8/2005 VIDE ANNEX-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
6 2. This writ petition is filed requesting the Court to set aside the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kolar in F.D.P.No.8/2005 produced at Annexure-K. The trial Court by its order rejected the interim report of the Court Commissioner dated 08.08.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner during the course of the arguments made the submission that Court Commissioner was appointed in the case to conduct the public auction of the property. Before that, notice was published in two news papers informing public about the sale going to be conducted by the Court Commissioner. Learned counsel, however, made submission that by following the due procedure, the Court Commissioner conducted the public auction of the property, but, however, the trial Court rejected the interim report submitted by the Court Commissioner stating that there are infirmities in the procedure followed by the Court
7 Commissioner. Learned counsel submitted that this observation made by the trial Court is patently illegal. Looking to the steps taken by the Court Commissioner before conducting the public auction proceedings he has followed all the due procedures and then only, he conducted the public auction. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the report of the Court Commissioner is not sustainable in law and the matter requires consideration in this proceeding.
I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition and also the interim order which has been challenged before this Court in this writ petition. Looking to the order passed by the trial Court, in paragraph No.11 of its order, the trial Court has clearly observed in its finding, firstly that the publication made in the two newspapers cannot be said that they are newspapers having a wide publicity and giving message to the public about the public auction conducted by the Court
8 Commissioner. It is also observed by the trial Court that the Court Commissioner conducted auction proceedings by sitting in his chamber and not at the public place. There is also infirmity that without getting the sale confirmation from the competent Court, the Commissioner arbitrarily acted in executing the sale deed in favour of the purchaser by name Suresha S/o. Late Chidambara Shetty and distributed the sale proceeds to some of the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court observing these infirmities in the procedures followed by the Court Commissioner in conducting the public auction so also in executing the sale deed, ultimately comes to the conclusion to reject the interim report of the Court Commissioner dated 08.08.2013.
Looking to the reasons assigned by the trial Court in its order and more particularly at paragraph 11 of the said order, the reasons are sound and they are supported by the materials. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the trial Court rejecting the interim report
9 of the Court Commissioner is illegal or it is perverse. Therefore, there are no justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
No merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE