- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1548 OF 2016 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: KRISHNAMOORTHI UPADHAYA S/O. NARAYANA UPADHAYA, AGE:48 YEARS, R/A NO.3-190, VEERA HANUMAN ROAD, CHITPADY, UDUPI-576101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNA BHAT S/O.GURURAJA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KATTE ACHARYA MARG, KADIYALI, P.O KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI-576102. 2. SALE OFFICER SDCC BANK LTD., MAIN BRANCH, MOSQUE ROAD, UDUPI-576101. 3. RECOVERY OFFICER AND ARCS (RUPE 441) SDCC BANK LTD., Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE-575001. 4. HON’BLE MINISTER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-1 5. KRISHNA GUNDA SHETTY S/O GUNDA SHETTY AGED 71 YEARS MUMBAI ANDERI (WEST) MAHARASHTRA STATE (AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.06.2022) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S K ACHARYA C/R1., IN CP 8467/2018 SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R3 & R4 R5 NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT, V/O DATED 26.02.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ;QUASH THE ORDER DTD 20.10.2015 PASSED IN REVISIION PETITION NO.CO 10 CAP 2012 BY THE R-4 AS PER ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order dated 20.10.2015 passed in Revision Petition No.CO 10 CAP 2012 by respondent No.4 as per Annexure ‘A’ . 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ petition, are as follows: 3. Respondent No.1 had availed a personal loan from respondent No.2-Bank in 2003 and while availing the loan, he has mortgaged his immoveable property. It is contended that respondent No.1 was a chronic default insofar as repayment of loan and as respondent No.1 has not repaid the loan amount, respondent No.2 initiated a recovery proceeding against respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 has complied with all the legal formalities as envisaged under Rule 38 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules, 2017. It is contended that respondent No.3 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 has attached the property and took out the public sale notice and sold the immovable property through auction proceedings in favour of the petitioner, who was the highest bidder on 18.11.2018. 4. Subsequently, the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner regarding the property which was auctioned on 18.11.2018. After completion of the sale in favour of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was entered in the RTC extract. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the property in favour of respondent No.5 and his name came to be entered in the RTC extract. 5. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before respondent No.4 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. Respondent No.4, without passing any order on the application for condonation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 of delay, allowed the revision petition. Hence, this petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 without exhausting the efficacious remedy available under Rule 38(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, filed a revision petition before respondent No.4 after more than 3½ years. He submits that respondent No.1 filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before respondent No.4. He submits that respondent No.4 without passing any order on the said application, has passed the impugned order. He submits that unless the delay is condoned, there is no revision in the eyes of law. The said aspect was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 not adequately considered by respondent No.4. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, he submits that the impugned order may be quashed and respondent No.4 be directed to pass an order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by respondent No.1. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has raised several grounds, namely, there are irregularities in the auction proceedings; the property was sold for a meagre price; respondent No.1 has deposited the entire outstanding dues, and there are no dues to respondent No.2-Bank and hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 10. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 has availed a personal loan from respondent No.2-Bank and he was a chronic defaulter. He did not repay the loan amount within the time. Respondent No.2 initiated a recovery proceedings against respondent No.1. It is contended that respondent No.3 has complied with the provisions of Rule 38 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules. 12. Insofar as whether respondent No.3 has complied with Rule 38 of Karnataka Co-operation Societies Rules, is a matter to be decided by respondent No.4. 13. Admittedly, respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before respondent No.4 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Unless the delay is condoned, there is no revision petition in the eyes of law. Admittedly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 respondent No.4, without passing any order on the application for condonation of delay, has proceeded to pass an order on merits. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 on merits without condoning delay is arbitrary and erroneous. 14. Without going into the merits of the case, and solely on the ground that respondent No.4 without passing an order on the application for condonation of delay, has passed the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order dated 20.10.2015 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure ‘A’ is hereby quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 (iii) The Revision Petition No.CO 10 CAP 2012 on the file of respondent No.4 is restored to its original file. (iv) Respondent No.4 is directed to pass an order on the application for condonation of delay first and thereafter, pass an appropriate order on merits, in accordance with law. (v) All the contentions of the parties are kept open, including maintainability of the revision petition before respondent No.4. (vi) Though, respondent No.5 was impleaded during the pendency of this writ petition, a liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to file an application for impleading respondent No.5 before respondent No.4. (vii) If such an application is filed, respondent No.4 is directed to pass - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3118 WP No. 1548 of 2016 an appropriate order in accordance with law. (viii) A liberty is also reserved to respondent No.1 to make an application seeking prohibitory order. (ix) If such an application is filed, respondent No.4 is directed to consider, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34