- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 17134 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PADMAKSHI W/O R.SREENIVASA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.116, 13 ‘B’ CROSS 8TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 076. 2. SMT. KAMALAKASHINATH W/O KASHINATH G., AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MOUNTAIN STREET 1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011. 3. SMT. G.V.NEELAKSHI W/O KARUNAKARA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT 'SREE', NO. 1011, 17TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 029. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT.KAMALAKASHINATH. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 4. SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM S/O G.GURUSWAMY W/O LATE G.V.LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 5. SRI JAYANTH YADAV P., S/O G.PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 6. SRI PRASHANTH YADAV P., S/O G.PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT. NO.6, GOSHAIAH STREET AKKI THIMMANAHALLI SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027. 7. SMT. RASHMI RADHAKRISHNA W/O RAVI APPANNA D/O LATE SRI R.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.28, SHALIMAR CRESCENT DANDENONG NORTH, MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3175, AUSTRALIA. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.56/1, 1ST FLOOR, A.P.K. ROAD, II BLOCK, II CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 028. REPRESENTED BY HER P.A HOLDER-SISTER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 SMT. VEDASHREE R. YADAV. 8. SMT. VEDASHREE R. YADAV W/O SRI M.AJIT KUMAR D/O LATE SRI R.RADHAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.74/A, 31ST 'A' CROSS, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 082. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G.V.GOPALAKRISHNA S/O G.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.349 1ST FLOOR, 10TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. 2. SRI G.V.MURALIKRISHNA S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.349 GROUND FLOOR, 10TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. 3. SRI K.P.SANTOSH S/O K.V.PANDURANGAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.791, 25TH MAIN POORNA PRAJNA LAYOUT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 061. 4. SRI MARAVEKERE NARAYANA SHIVAKUMAR S/O NARAYANA SHETTY M.R., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.159, 2ND MAIN ROAD SAMPIGE ROAD, 9TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.M.L.SRIMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI R.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/04/2025 PASSED IN FDP NO. 28/2013 BY THE HON’BLE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON IA NO.10 FILED BY THE R1 U/O XXI RULE 90 OF CPC AND PROCEEDED TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY TO DETERMINE IF THE SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AT (ANNEXURE - Z), CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION IA NO. 10 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.04.2025 passed in F.D.P.No.28/2013 allowing the application filed by the 1st respondent under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directing conduct of an enquiry to determine if the sale should be set aside. 2. Heard Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.M.L.Srimathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri.R.S.Umesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: (a) A suit in O.S.No.4212/1992 is filed seeking declaration of a sale deed dated 29.08.1997 executed by 1st petitioner in favour of Sri.G.V.Muralikrishna to be void. The issue in the lis need not trace history. It would suffice if the consideration in the case at hand would emerge from the Final Decree Proceedings. Against the decree in O.S.Nos.4212/1992 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 3889/1992 dated 22.02.2012, R.F.A.Nos.591/2012 and 590/2012 was preferred. The said Regular First Appeals comes to be dismissed by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.01.2021. (b) During the subsistence of the Regular First Appeals, Final Decree Proceedings had been instituted in F.D.P.No.28/2013. In the Final Decree Proceedings, 1st respondent prefers application in I.A.No.10 under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC seeking to set aside the auction sale of the suit schedule property conducted by the Court Commissioner on 14.11.2024 in favour of name of the bidder one Santosh K.P. The 1st respondent seeks to set the order aside alleging that there is illegality in the conduct of auction and prayed for a fresh auction. Petitioners files their objections. The Court directs that in terms of Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, Court will conduct an enquiry to determine if the sale should be set aside. Therefore, an enquiry is directed, evidence is called for of the 1st respondent on the application. It is this order that has driven the petitioners in F.D.P.No.28/2013 before this Court in the subject petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the concerned Court has casually proceeded in the matter and events that have happened prior to the Final Decree Proceedings concerning the 1st respondent, his participation, auction sale conducted in accordance with law, are not considered, as the order is so cryptic that it would not sustain judicial scrutiny. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would seek to defend the action contending that there is no perversity in the order for this Court to entertain the petition and would defend the order. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 8. Since the issue that triggers the petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court is an order dated 02.04.2025. The order is passed on I.A.No.10 filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC. The order reads as follows: "1. The Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.10 under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC to set aside the auction sale of suit schedule property conducted by Court Commissioner on 14.11.2024 in favour of the bidder by name Santhosh K.P. and Maravekere Narayana Shiva Kumar. 2. The petitioner has filed objection to the said petition making assertion that the Respondent. No.1 has filed this application only to prolong the matter. 1 3. Order 21 Rule 90 CPC allows a Judgment Debtor to apply to set aside the sale of immovable property on the grounds of material irregularity or fraud in the publication of conduct of the sale provided substantial injuries proven. Order 21 Rule 90 CPC provides a mechanism for a judgment debtor to challenge the sale of their property in execution of a decree, if the sale was conducted irregularly or fraudulently. The JDR must file an application to set aside the same and the Court will conduct an enquiry to determine if the sale should be set aside. 4. 1 In the present case the Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.10 to set aside the sale alleging that there is a illegality in conducting the auction sale and prays for fresh auction. The petitioner have filed objection to the said application, but this Court directly heard the party and case is posted for orders on I.A. No.10. But as per Order 21 Rule 90 CPC the Court will conduct an enquiry to determine if the sale should be set aside. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct enquiry on the said application. Therefore, call for evidence of Respondent No.1 on the application I.A.No.10. Call on 21.04.2025." - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 9. The objections filed by the petitioners to the said application assumes significance. The objections runs into ten pages, not only pages but has contained in it which the concerned Court ought to have noticed prior to the passage of the order. The order of the concerned Court is quoted hereinabove. It does not even bear semblance of application of mind towards judicious consideration of the issue before it. The order undoubtedly is bald and laconic which is rendered unsustainable and the unsustainability is now to direct the concerned Court to hear I.A.No.10 afresh after considering the averments in the application and the objections filed thereto. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [i] Petition is allowed in part. [ii] The impugned order stands quashed. [iii] Matter is remitted back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, after - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24221 WP No. 17134 of 2025 bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. [iv] The said order shall be passed within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3