- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6356 WP No. 102771 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.102771 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. MAHESH S/O. BASAVARAJ MAGADUM AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 2. SHRAVAN S/O. BASAVARAJ MAGADUM AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, BOTH ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN AND NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.3. 3. SMT. VIDYA W/O. BASAVARAJ MAGADUM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE R/O. GURLAPUR ROAD, MUDALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. BHASKAR SANNAKKI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDALAGI, TALUK: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312. …RESPONDENT (BY MISS. VINUTA M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17-8-2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GOKAK IN EP NO.29/2020 ON IA NO 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7-6-2022 FOR ISSUANCE OF SALE PROCLAMATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.19 10:40:08 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6356 WP No. 102771 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioners, who are parties to the suit filed by the respondent seeking relief of specific performance of contract, have challenged the sale notice issued by the Executing Court while enforcing the decree for refund granted in O.S.No.278/2018. 2. The primary contention advanced by the petitioners is that the decree for specific performance passed by the Trial Court was directed solely against defendant No.1, and not against the present petitioners, even though they were parties to the original suit proceedings. The petitioners further assert that they have an independent and subsisting right over the suit schedule properties based on a decree passed in O.S. No.95/2014. In the said suit, a compromise was entered into between the parties, and accordingly, a preliminary decree was drawn. As per the terms of the compromise decree, only - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6356 WP No. 102771 of 2022 13 guntas of land was allotted to one Basavaraj, while the remaining 37 guntas of land in the suit schedule properties was jointly allotted to the petitioners. Based on this allocation, the petitioners argue that the issuance of the sale notice in respect of the entire suit schedule property, including their share of 37 guntas, is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law. 3. However, the petitioners have not taken any effective steps to seek adjudication of their rights or objections in accordance with the procedural safeguards available under the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, the petitioners have neither invoked Section 47 of the CPC to challenge the executability of the decree nor have they resorted to Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC to assert any obstruction or resistance in the course of execution. In the absence of any such application or objection being filed before the Executing Court, the issuance of the sale proclamation to give effect to the decree for refund passed in favour of the decree-holder cannot be said to be legally - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6356 WP No. 102771 of 2022 infirm. The Executing Court has merely proceeded to execute the decree in accordance with law, and the impugned order issuing the sale proclamation does not warrant any interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18