- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29675 WP No. 18750 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 18750 OF 2025 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LOKAYYA M.G., S/O GOPALAKRISHNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO.A0092, MULUGODU HOUSE, MADAPPADY POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. JANE SONA D'SOZA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 024. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION, PUTTUR - 574 201. 3. SRI. VENKATARAMANA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HEAD OFFICE- SRI. VENKATARAMA TOWERS, MOGARPANE, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 239. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29675 WP No. 18750 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. REGISTERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. 4. SRI. HONNAPPA N.T., S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. A00108, MAJALU HOUSE, MADAPADI POST AND VILLAGE SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 218. 5. SRI. VIJAYA VALTAJE, S/O CHENNAKESHAVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MEMBERSHIP NO. A03315, MALAPADI POST AND VILLAGE, SULLIA, D. K. DISTRICT - 574 239. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S.ROHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ISSUANCE OF FORM NO.8 NOTICE DATED 28.05.2025 UNDER RULE 38(2)(D) OF THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND FORM NO.9 ISSUED UNDER RULE XXII (7)(E) OF THE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CEP NO.12/2020-21 FIXING THE DATE FOR AUCTION TO 02.07.2025 FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY MENTIONED THEREIN AT 11.00 AM WHICH ARE AT ANNEXURE- A AND B, RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29675 WP No. 18750 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 - Society for recovery of loan advanced. The proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. It is seen that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Sections 105 and 106 of the Act. However, this Court had passed an interim order dated 30.06.2025 which reads as under: "1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. Issue notice to respondents No.3, 4 and 5 returnable by 14.08.2025. 3. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that due to financial stringency, the petitioner could not make payment of the due amounts. The total amount due as on today is Rs.25,16,774/- as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29675 WP No. 18750 of 2025 on 28.05.2025/-. The petitioner in order to establish his bonafides would make payment of a sum equivalent to 25% of the said amount, i.e., Rs.6,30,000/- within four weeks from today, that is by 28.07.2025 and another sum equivalent to 25% i.e. Rs.6,30,000/- within four weeks thereafter, that is by 25.08.2025. 4. In view of the said submission, though the auction can go on, respondents are restrained from confirming the auction sale. 5. Process fee and copies to be furnished by end of day the 03.07.2025. In the event of default thereof, as also in the event of default in making payment of the above installments, the interim order would stand automatically vacated and respondent-Bank would be at liberty to confirm the auction. 6. Re-list on 14.08.2025." 3. Having noticed that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in the manner known to law. However, the interim order granted by this Court on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29675 WP No. 18750 of 2025 30.06.2025 shall continue for a further period of four (4) weeks from today. 4. It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and if an appeal were to be filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the same in the manner known to law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 5. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if any appeal were to be filed by him. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24