- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31344 OF 2025 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. RAJESHWARI.S (LESSEE) W/O SRI.RENUKESH.HR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.244, 4TH B MAIN ROAD, 4TH STAGE, 4TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE -560 079 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VEERESHA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER'S RAHUL TS BRANCH OFFICE NO.195/38, 1ST FLOOR, HDFC BUILDING, 10TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE -560 027 2. SHIVASHREE WINES, REP. BY PROPRIETOR NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO. 36-46-105, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 079 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 AND ALSO AT NO. 244, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH STAGE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE -560 079 3. NAGAMMA MUNISWAMAPPA, W/O LATE KEMPREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO. 34-2, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 079 4. DEEPAK K., S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO.34-2, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 079 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.AVINASH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE XXIV CHIEF JUDICIAL OFFICER IN CRL. MISC. NO. 4741/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: a) Issue a writ in the name of nature of certiorari, set- aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the XXIV Chief Judicial Officer in Crl.Misc. No.4714/2025 produced at Annexure-L and b) Consequently issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quash the impugned undated notice issued by the 1st respondent Bank produced at Annexure-N. c) Pass any other orders which this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner is lessee in the premises of the property which is mortagaged by respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.3 on 01.07.2021. Having received an amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, respondent No.3 permitted the petitioner to occupy the premises. Thereafter the R-3 agreed to sell the property to the petitioner for Rs.1,87,50,000/-and allowed continued possession pending the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter the petitioner has filed OS.No.4289/2022 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 16.03.2022 and for a declaration that mortgage dated 18.06.2022 is invalid and said suit is pending before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. An interim application is also filed seeking temporary injunction and the court has passed an order restraining - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 the respondent No.3 from alienating the property. It is submitted that R-1/Bank is subsequently impleaded as party to the suit. When she came to know about that the property is being mortagaged to the bank, the account of respondent No.3 is declared as NPA and proceedings under SURFAESI ACT is initiated. Now the petitioner is before this court questioning the order dated 25.09.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.4714/2024. It is further stated that the petitioner has given substantial amount to respondent No.3 and he is also ready to pay the outstanding amount and in this regard he has tried to contact and negotiate with the bank but the bank has never came forward. It is submitted that at this point of time, if the petitioner is forcefully evicted from the possession it would cause lot of hardship to the petitioner as entire family is residing in the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready to pay the outstanding amount to the bank. 3. Further learned counsel submits that as per the order dated 25.09.2025, the court had appointed the Advocate instead of Sheritedar to enforce and execute the order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 Learned counsel draws the attention of the court to the notice issued by the respondent No.1 where he was directed to vacate the premises to facilitate the smooth transaction. Learned counsel submits that the court had appointed the advocate to take possession of the property, respondent No.1/bank has no business. It is submitted that bank without informing the petitioner, they cannot proceed and at least the breathing time should be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/bank submits that the account is declared as NPA in the year 2023 and Auction Notification is issued on January, 2025. Then the petitioner has approached the DRT by filing SA.No.152/2025 and DRT has refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. Then he has come before this court by filing WP.No.7265/2025 and same is dismissed as infructuous on 09.04.2025 as sale was conducted as per the auction notification. 5. Further, the learned counsel submits that they cannot accept the money from the petitioner as he is not the borrower and they have already filed the suit, now it is for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 respondent No.3 to get the disputes resolved before the City Civil Court, Bangalore and as far as the Bank which is the secured debtor is concerned, already initiated the SARFAESI proceedings and the petitioner could not point out any irregularity warranting interference of this court under article 226 of Constitution of India. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The petitioner is a lessee and respondent No.3 is owner of the property who had mortagaged the property to the Bank. In the entire contentions that are recorded by this court in the preceding paragraphs, the petitioner has not raised any single legal tenable ground seeking interference of this court. The contention of the petitioner is that, she is ready to pay the amount, this court do not find any force in the said argument. When the civil suit filed by her is pending seeking specific performance, it is for the Civil Court to decide whether she is entitled for specific performance, whether there is valid agreement between the parties. At this stage this court cannot permit the petitioner to pay the amount, which virtually amounts to pre-judging the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41196 WP No. 31344 of 2025 civil suit and that submission of the petitioner has no legs to stand. Then with regard to the submission of the petitioner, on granting reasonable time, the petitioner is fighting this litigation from January where she has gone to DRT by filing SA No.152/2025. Thereafter she came before this court by filing writ petition No.7265/2025 and same is dismissed on 09.04.2025. In the month of October, 2025 again the petitioner cannot request that he needs reasonable time. 7. In these circumstances, this court do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court, Bangalore. Accordingly, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As, in the petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2