K P KRISHNAPPA Vs. B GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition under S. 115 CPC, is preferred by the judgment- debtor against the order dated 24-8-1977 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, confirming the order dated 17-3-1975 passed by the Executing Court in Exn. Case No. 272 of 1968.

(2.) Facts necessary to appreciate the contentions raised by Sri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, are as follows:

(3.) Sri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that it was necessary to hold final bid before the presiding officer at the Court house as per Rule 138 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the"Rules), and as the final bid was not held, the auction sale was not complete; therefore the question of confirmation of sale did not arise. Alternatively, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even on the assumption that the sale had taken place, during the pendency of the application for setting aside the sale, the decree-holder had agreed to accept the amount and to set aside the sale and accordingly the decree-holder accepted the amount paid in Court by the judgment debtor from time to time and the Court also entered part satisfaction of the decree.. Not only this, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that the auction purchaser also agreed for setting aside the sale on repayment of the amount deposited by him with solatium to which the judgment debtor had no objection; therefore, he did not pursue the application. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the petitioner was granted time to pay the balance of the decretal amount and the solatium. As such, it was submitted that the question of confirmation of sale did not arise, as it was open for the decree holder and the auction purchaser to agree for setting aside the sale on payment of the decretal amount with solatium. Therefore it was submitted that the proper remedy for the decree holder and the auction purchaser was to enforce the order dated 31-1-1975 passed on the basis of the compromise. In support of the alternative contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Moti Lal v. Md, Hasan Khan (1) . It was also further submitted that the petitioner had deposited in this court a sum of Rs. 2.000 and Rs. 1,883 on 8-11-1978 under R.O. No. 896 and 897 respectively. Thus, in all, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,883. Out of that, if Rs. 2,000 were to be paid to the auction purchaser towards the solatium, the remaining amount, according to the learned Counsel was sufficient to enter full satisfaction of the decree.