- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10983 WP No. 7268 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 7268 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. RAVI, S/O R. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SMT. SHREEDEVI, W/O V. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH R/AT HOUSE NO. 208, (OLD KHANRSHUMARI NO.98/3), 2ND CROSS, 1ST PHASE, 1ST STAGE, JAIBHEEMNAGAR SOUTH BTM LAYOUT, VP ROAD, OLD MADIVALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C, ADVOCATE) AND: UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORISED MANAGER, HSR LAYOUT BRANCH, BENGALURU - 560 087. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. DIVYA PURANDAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10983 WP No. 7268 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SALE NOTICE AS PER ANNX-A DATED 19.02.2025 BEARING NO. OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/629/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) To Set aside the Sale Notice as per Annexure - A dated 19.02.2025 Bearing No.OR/UBI/ARB/ BNG/629/2024-25 issued by the Respondent in respect of the Schedule Property. b) Direct the respondent bank to grant further 6 months' time to pay the balance due as per Annexure A sale notice Dated 19.02.2025 Bearing No.OR/UBI/ARB/BNG/629/2024-25. c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri Vinay Swamy C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Divya Purandar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Smt. Divya Purandar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the sale on the said date has - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10983 WP No. 7268 of 2025 not taken place and therefore, the date of auction has spent itself. She would further contend that the subject petition is fourth in line. Everytime the petitioner comes up with a petition, undertakes to make the payment and does not pay and therefore, such petition should not be entertained. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners disputes the position and contends that payment has been made every time when the interim order is granted. 5. Be those submissions as they are. In the light of the date of auction spending itself, the petition does not survive for any further consideration. Both the parties are reserved liberty in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85 CT: BHK