- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 7761 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT. RENUKA W/O MAHADEVA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT:2280/6, 6TH MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGARA, MYSORE - 570 012 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANTAKUMAR K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE DISTRICT. MYSORE - 570 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 002. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MYSORE AND CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE, NEHARU CIRCLE ASHOKA ROAD, MYSORE-570002 Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 4. MYSORE AND CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ITS BRANCH OFFICE BANDIPALYA, BRANCH, MYSORE REP. BY ITS MANAGER MYSORE - 570 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & 2 SRI. K. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 17.02.2025 IN NO. SA NEE.-41/C- 7/DHAVA/ PR-02/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 17.02.2025 IN NO. SA NEE.-41/C-7/DHAVA/ PR -02/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L1. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the Notice dated 17.02.2025, produced as per Annexures-L and L1. 2. Heard Sri Shantakumar K.C., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. K. Ananda, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials on record. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have obtained loan of Rs.40,00,000/- each on 27.03.2018 from respondent No.3-Bank and they committed default in repaying the same. Respondent No.3 raised the dispute before respondent No.2. The award came to be passed as per Annexures-A and A1 on 30.09.2022 against both the petitioners. Admittedly, these awards were never challenged by the petitioners and neither they have repaid the amount that was due. 4. Respondent No.3 filed the Execution Petition before respondent No.2 and brought the property belonging to the petitioners for sale to recover the amount due. The petitioners initially filed W.P.No.23455/2024. An interim order was granted subject to deposit of 20% of the amount that was due. However, the said order was not complied. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2025. Thereafter, Annexures-L and L1 which are impugned in this petition came to be passed on 17.02.2025. The petitioners - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 again approached this Court. This Court passed the interim order on 17.03.2025, which reads as under: "Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Sri. K. Ananda, counsel who has filed caveat for respondent No.4 also accepts notice for respondent No.3. The submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that due to financial stringency, the petitioners could not make payment of the due amounts. The total amount due as on today is Rs.75,00,000/-. The petitioners in order to establish their bonafides would make payment of a sum equivalent to 25% of the said amount that is Rs.18,75,000/- within four weeks from today, that is on or before 14.04.2025 and in four weeks thereafter, that is by 12.05.2025, the entire loan amount that is Rs.56,25,000/- would be paid. In view of the said submission, it is made clear that though the auction shall go on, the same shall be subject to the result of the present petition. The auction shall not be confirmed without obtaining permission from this Court. In the event of any default made by the petitioners in the aforesaid undertaking, the interim order would stand automatically vacated. Hand delivery ordered. Re-list on 21.04.2025." 5. Admittedly, the said undertaking was not complied with. As per order dated 21.04.2025, the petitioners again undertook to pay Rs.15,00,000/- by 12.05.2025 and the entire - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 balance amount will be paid thereafter. Therefore, the interim order was extended subject to deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- on 12.05.2025 and the balance amount of Rs.41,25,000/- on 20.06.2025. But as per order dated 05.06.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners again sought for time to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-. Later as per order dated 13.06.2025, only Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited and undertook to pay another Rs.5,00,000/- within 15 days. 6. As per order dated 04.07.2025, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 submitted that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- is due. Learned counsel for the petitioners again sought for time to file affidavit of the petitioners indicating as to in what manner and within which time the balance amount will be paid. As per order dated 18.09.2025, learned counsel for the petitioners undertook to pay balance amount of Rs.19,03,470/- within 3 months. But the said undertaking was also not complied with. Therefore, as per order dated 04.11.2025, the interim orders granted earlier were not extended and the matter is now listed today to hear learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents on merits finally as a last chance. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45612 WP No. 7761 of 2025 Even today, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks a month's time to make payment. 7. I do not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending after recording various undertakings by the learned counsel for the petitioners, without complying the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that on merits, he has no case. 8. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to adjourn the matter and even there are no merits in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2025 also stands dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS