LAWS(KAR)-1992-1-15

BHOJAIAH Vs. SAMSAN METAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD

Decided On January 28, 1992
BHOJAIAH Appellant
V/S
SAMSAN METAL INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is preferred againstthe order dated 7-3-1990 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya in Miscellaneous No.12/1986. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision Petition, briefly stated, are as under:

(2.) Dr.Hemavathi B.Shetty and her husband K.Bhaskar Shetty were running respondent-1 Industries which is a Private Limited Company. The instant respondent-2 State Bank of Mysore, Mandya Branch, Mandya has filed a suit against the said M/s.Samsan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., and its Managing Director and had obtained a decree. The said decree was put in execution in Ex.Case No.173/1976 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Mandya. The State Bank of Mysore, that is to say, the instant respondent-2 had sought for sale of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties consisting of both moveabie and immoveable properties. In the Court sale held on 26-7-1979, the instant petitioner and respondent-3 - S.Mumtaz Sheriff had purchased the 'A' Schedule properties (immoveable properties). The judgment-debtor that is to say, the instant respondent-1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 19 CPC praying for setting aside the sale. The Principal Civil Judge on 11-3-1980 dismissed the said application for setting aside the sale and confirmed the sale. Aggrieved by the said order, the judgment-debtor filed a Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.935/1980 and obtained a stay order. The said Revision Petition was allowed on 21-1-1985 and set aside the sale and its confirmation. In pursuance of the Order of this Court dated 21-1-1985 in C.R.P.No.935/1980 setting aside the sale and its confirmation, the Petition 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties were required to be re-delivered to the judgment- debtor. However, the same was not done. Under these circumstances, M/s.Samsan Metal Industries filed Misc. Petition No. 12/1986 before the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya for restitution.

(3.) Petition was resisted by respondents -1, 3 4, 6 and 7 before the Principal Civil Judge on the grounds reflected in para-3 of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.