SHARANAPPA Vs. K. SHRISHAILA AND VIRUPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O .S. No. 70/2002, filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gangavathi, after trial, was dismissed for the main relief, but was decreed for the alternative relief and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover earnest money of Rs. 75,000/ - with cost and interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the defendant, with effect from 11.07.2000, till the date of realisation. The plaintiff/decree holder filed Execution Case No. 124/2003 for realisation of the said decree amount, quantified at Rs. 1,13,200/ -. The decree having not been satisfied, house belonging to the petitioner/judgment debtor was attached and sold in public auction, wherein respondent No. 2 was the highest bidder. The sale conducted on 13.11.2006 having been confirmed for a sum of Rs. 1,15,500/ - sale certificate vide Annexure 'D' was issued by the Execution Court on 11.07.2007. A Possession Delivery Warrant having been issued on 06.06.2008, directing the judgment debtor to put the auction purchaser into possession, with Police help on 05.07.2008, this writ petition was filed on 18.07.2008, assailing the order dated 05.07.2008 as at Annexure 'C' and the Sale Certificate dated 11.07.2007 as at Annexure 'D'.

(2.) BY an order dated 21.07.2008, impugned order and the sale certificate were stayed. The matter was adjourned from 09.04.2009, on the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that there is likelihood of settlement. There being no settlement, the matter is taken up for consideration.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents submitted that, even till date, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the decree amount and the expenditure incurred thereafter in the matter of auction sale, for appointment obtaining the sale certificate, etc. and this writ petition is nothing but causing obstruction in the matter of decree holder realising the fruits of the decree and auction purchaser being subject to harassment. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not shown any bona fides and the impugned proceedings being in accordance with law, no interference is warranted in the matter.