PUTTAKAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for consideration herein is tenability of proceedings held by the Tahsildar leading to the auction sale of certain properties that were the subject matter of decree of a Civil Court. The proceedings of the Tahsildar is at annexure-'B' wherein he purported to put up the subject matter of the decree of the Civil Court to an auction at which the bidders were the parties to the suit and was eventually knocked down by the successful bidder i.e., the 7th respondent. The petitioner is one of the parties to the auction sale. Being himself a judgment debtor under the decree obtained by the 7th respondent who is the plaintiff in the suit questioned the auction proceedings and the subsequent affirmance of the same by the Deputy Commissioner and finally by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on appeal.

(2.) The point raised herein is the competence of the Tahsildar to have taken the step of putting up the properties for auction as a step in aid to executing the decree that had been admittedly sent by the Civil Court to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said provision the execution of the decree following its commendation to the Deputy Commissioner had to be done either by him or by a gazetted Assistant of the Collector. Section 54 reads;

(3.) A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that while it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to execute the decree forwarded by the Civil Court, he had also the option and liberty to direct his Gazetted Assistant to do the needful in the matter by standing in for him. Relegation or entrustment of authority to carry out the direction of the Civil Court in that behalf can be made as aforesaid by the Deputy Commissioner as provided by section 54 itself.