VISHNUDAS M BHAT Vs. GOVINDRAY M BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's learned Advocate submits that under the terms of the decree that is sought to be executed, the whole of the property comprising of survy No. 380, plot No. 24 in susagadi village, bhatkal taluk, which comprises of a house along with some area of land was required to be sold if the petitioners who are the heirs of the original judgment-debtor did not pay the amount prescribed in the decree within the time stipulated therein. Admittedly, the amount was not paid and the court therefore issued a sale proclamation. The present petitioner applied for stay of the sale which was rejected by the court and the court also accepted the bid of the action purchaser for Rs. 3,05,000/ -. According to the petitioner's learned advocate, the whole of the property was not put up for sale and it was only a portion thereof or to quote his words, only that part which the petitioner was occupying was put up for sale and he submits that having regard to the prevailing prices, that had the whole of the property being offered for sale, that the amount which it would have fetched would have been much higher. The manner in which this proceeding has been conducted in the trial court leaves much to be desired and I do not find on record any objections either with regard to the sale proclamation or for that matter any indication from the petitioners as to what according to them should have been a fair realisable price. This is a very sad reflection and the manner in which this case has been conducted and to my mind, the responsibility lies entirely on the persons who are handling this litigation. The grievance that is now sought to be made before me is that having regard to what happened, a fresh proclamation ought to be issued specifying that the whole of the property is for sale and that the court should endeavour to ensure that the fair and proper market value is realised. It is not the responsibility of the learned judge to conduct market surveys and to ACT as an estate agent for purposes of fixing property prices but it is necessary that the parties or those who conduct the cases on their behalf should bring necessary material before the court to establish their contention that the value of the property is of a prescribed amount. In the absence of this, merely filing revision petitions and making grievances cannot be permitted.

(2.) NORMALLY, I would have dismissed this petition outrighte xcept for the fact that this court has earlier issued rule in the matter and the case is already four years old. Undoubtedly, the property values will have changed and it would therefore be unjust to the parties if bids that are four years old were to be accepted at this point of time. It is in this background that the following directions are issued:

(3.) WITH these directions, the civil revision petition which partially succeeds to stand disposed of. No costs. The pending i. as to stand disposed of.