- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 35199 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI GOPALAKRISHNA G V, S/O G.VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.349, FIRST FLOOR, 10TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAKSHI, W/O R.SREENIVASA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.116, 13 'B' CROSS, 8TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 076. 2. SMT. KAMALAKASHINATH, W/O KASHINATH G, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.26, MOUNTEEN STREET, 1ST BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 3. SMT. G.V.NEELAKSHI, W/O KARUNAKARA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT 'SREE', NO.1011, 17TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 1ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT. BENGALURU-560 029. SMT.G.V.LAKSHMI, W/O PURUSHOTHAM SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 4. SRI G.PURUSHOTHAM, S/O G.GURUSWAMY, H/O LATE SMT.G.LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 5. SRI JAYANTH YADAV P, S/O G. PURUSHOTHAM & LATE G. LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 6. SRI PRASHANTH YADAV P, S/O G. PURUSHOTHAM & LATE G. LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. R/AT NO.349, NANDA GOKULA. III BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. 7. SRI R.RADHAKRISHNA, S/O LATE G.VENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SMT. S.RENUKA, W/O LATE SRI.R. RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.56/1, 1ST FLOOR, A.P.K.ROAD, II BLOCK, II CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 028. 8. SMT. RASHMI RADHAKRISHNA, W/O RAVI APPANNA, D/O LATE SRI.R. RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.28, SHALIMAR CRESCENT, DANDENONG NORTH, MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3175, AUSTRALIA. PERMANENT R/AT NO.56/1, 1ST FLOOR, A.P.K.ROAD, II BLOCK II CROSS, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 028. REP. BY HER P.A.HOLDER MOTHER SMT.S.RENUKA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 9. SMT.VEDASHREE R YADAV, W/O SRI.M.AJIT KUMAR, D/O LATE SRI R. RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.74/A, 31ST 'A' CROSS. 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 070. 10. SRI G.V.MURALIKRISHNA, S/O LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.349, GROUND FLOOR, 10TH B MAIN ROAD, III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2 & R-1, R-3 TO R-9; SRI M.L SRIMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-10) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONORABLE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-3) DATED 24.10.2025 IN FDP NO.28/2013 VIDE ANNX -K IN REJECTING THE IA NO.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by respondent No.1 in FDP.No.28/2013 on the file of XV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-3) is directed against the impugned order passed on IA.No.X, whereby the said application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.1 under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w Section 151 of CPC to set aside the auction of the suit property conducted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 by the Court Commissioner on 14.11.2024 was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner and respondents were parties to a suit in OS.No.4212/1992 for partition and separate possession and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.02.2012, which was challenged before this Court in RFA.Nos.590/2012 and 591/2012. The said appeals were filed by the petitioner herein and culminated in a judgment and decree dated 13.01.2021, whereby this Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the petitioner. The petitioner/appellant in RFA.No.590/2012 and 591/2012 did not challenge the judgment and decree passed by this Court and the same attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the appellant. 3. In the meanwhile, the final decree proceedings had been instituted in FDP.No.28/2013 and the same were taken up by the trial Court, which directed conducting of a public auction and the same was conducted on 14.11.2024 by the Court Commissioner. In the said public auction, the auction purchasers - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 K.P.Santhosh and Maravekare Narayana Shivakumar had purchased the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant application i.e., IA.No.X seeking setting aside of the sale inter alia contending that the procedure contemplated under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC had not been followed by the trial Court in as much as there was no paper publication and no tom-tom conducted by the trial Court and also on the ground that there was no sale proclamation issued by the trial Court, which would vitiate the sale. It deserves to be set aside. 4. The said application having been opposed by the respondents, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invite my attention to the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC in order to contend that in the absence of the trial Court following the prescribed procedure, in particular Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC and without issuing a sale proclamation, the impugned sale was vitiated and the same deserves to be set aside. In support of his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh1 and judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of L.Nanjunda Murthy and Others Vs., S.Suresh Reddy and Others2 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has taken into account the undisputed facts and circumstances obtained in the instant case including the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, which clearly establish that the prescribed procedure had been followed by the trial Court. The trial Court also took into account the conduct of the petitioner in participating in the proceedings and has come to the conclusion that no illegality or irregularity had been 1 (1994) 1 SCC 131 2 AIR 2017 KANT 50 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 established, much less, fraud for the purpose of setting aside the sale. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held as under: “ORDERS ON IA No.X The respondent No.1 has filed this application Under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w section 151 of CPC to set aside the auction of the suit property conducted by the Court Commissioner on 14.11.2024 in favour of the only bidder by name Santosh K.P. and Maravakere Narayana Shivakumar. 2. In support of the application, the respondent No.1 has filed his sworn affidavit wherein he has stated that, this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 was ordered to be sold the schedule property in public auction through Court Commissioner by name C.V.Manjunatha. As per the direction of the Court the intended purchasers by name K.P.Santosh and Maravakere Narayana Shivakumar have deposited bid amount Rs.10,00,000/- through Demand Draft in favour of Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. While conducting public auction the Court Commissioner has not followed proper procedure. Except the above said persons there was no other bidder who participated in the public auction. The court commissioner instead of postponing the public auction and has proceeded to conduct the same on 14.11.2024. There were no bidders except the solitary applicant who had deposited Rs.10,00,000/-. There was no proclamation of sale by the Court commissioner and except that one bidder. The Court Commissioner without their being second bidder has erroneously held that the bid amount deposited by K.P.Santosh and his partner Maravakere Narayana Shivakumar who had jointly bid were successful highest bidder in the Court auction. In the circumstances there is no proper conducting of the public auction. This fact has been brought to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 notice of the Court on 19.11.2024. If the said public auction is not set aside, he will be put to untold hardship. Hence, he prayed to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the petitioners have filed objection to the application contending that, the application filed by the respondent No.1 is not maintainable. It is contented that the respondent No.1 is sadistic personality has adopted all sorts of dubious modes to see that his sister/petitioners should not get share in the property left behind by the father. The respondent No.1 has dragged the issue of partition since 1992 and his efforts were went vein before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and he also suffered negative in his approaches before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. After exhausting all his remedies ultimately he requested for sale of the property at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per Sq.Ft., which amounting to Rs.6,24,000/-. The petitioner considering the blood relationship, agreed for the same. However, for the one or other reason the respondent prolonged the matter and ultimately this court ordered for sale of property in public auction, but none have come forward for purchase to the tune of Rs.30,000/- for Sq. Ft, when the suit property was put in auction on 20.07.2024, the very respondent No.1 expressed that the value of the property is less that Rs.26000/- per Sq.Ft., therefore this Court fixed the Sale of price at Rs.27,000/-. 4. Subsequent to the order of the Court, the Court Commissioner proceeded in accordance with law, published about the public auction in daily news paper i.e., Kannada Prabha and Indian Express. In response to the said public auction to the notice the persons by name K.P.Santosh and Narayana Shivakumar came forward for participating in the bid fixed on 14.11.2024 and as per the requirement deposited the minimum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as fixed by the Court. On the date of bidding the Court Commissioner proceed for auction of the property as no other bidder came forward and the only bidder - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 who deposited the requisite amount participated in auction proceeded and bid for Rs.27,000/- per Sq.Ft., was accepted. On that day petitioner, counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1, counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 were present at the time of auction held on 14.11.2024. Such being the case now the respondent No.1 cannot question the said auction conducted by the Court Commissioner by following the due process of law. Amongst to other reasons the petitioners prayed to dismiss the application filed by the respondent No.1. 5. Heard, perused the materials on record, the following points that would arise for my determination. 1. Whether the respondent No.1 has made out sufficient grounds to set aside the auction of sale of the suit schedule property conducted by the Court Commissioner on 14.11.2024 on the ground or irregularity or fraud committed in conducting the said public auction? 2. What order? 6. My answer to the above points to the as under; Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1:- As could be seen from the records it appears that, the petitioners have filed suit against the defendants in O.S.No.4212/1992 seeking the relief of Partition and Separate Possession of their legitimate 1/7th share in the suit schedule property. After contest, on 23.02.2012 the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree the respondent have filed RFA No.590/2012 and it was dragged for 9 years and ultimately on 13.01.2021 the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 said RFA dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court. Subsequently, the petitioners have initiated this Final Decree Proceedings. 8. It is worth to note that the respondent No.1 adopted all sorts of efforts and made unwarranted applications, which was dismissed by this court against which he was filed W.P.No.2157/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein this matter was stayed for more than 2 years and after hearing on merits the said Writ Petition is came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, again the respondent filed another application requesting share in his property i.e., 5¾ x 60, knowing well that the said property is not feasible for partition of the said property out of 40x60 feet, the said application was dismissed by this Court against which again he preferred W.P.No.25315/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the said Writ Petition is dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court, against which he preferred SLP No.4154/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after hearing the said petition is came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2024. 9. The record reveals that, as per the request of the petitioners public auction was order to be conducted through court commissioner and for the said purposes learned Advocate Sri. C.V.Manjunath was appointed as Court Commissioner and directed the Court Commissioner to proceed with the auction of property. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner filed a memo on 30.05.2024 informing regarding the prevailing market value of the subject property is around Rs.32,000/- to 35,000/- sq.ft., On that day the respondent No.1 filed an memo stating that he intend to purchase the schedule property for Rs.25,000/- per sq.ft. The court has given option for respondent No.1 to participate in Public auction and fixed public auction date on 20.07.2024 and fixed the sale price at Rs.30,000/- per Sq.Ft. The public were notified about the auction through Kannada and English daily - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 News Papers, Tom Tom, Pamphlets, but none have turned up, as such said public auction was failed. 10. The order sheet further reveals that, the respondent No.1 filed a Memo on 01.08.2024 expressing his intention of purchasing the suit property at the rate Rs.26,000/- per sq.ft. Subsequently respondent No.1 filed an Undertaking Affidavit on 02.08.2024 stating that he would complete the sale transaction by paying the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.26,000/- within one month from the said day. The petitioners since agreed for the proposal of respondent No.1 this court has permitted the Respondent No.1 to deposit the sale consideration amount at the rate of Rs.26,000/- per sq.ft within a month. However, the respondent No.1 has not complied with his own undertaking, despite lapse of two months. Hence having no other alternative this Court on the request of petitioners proceeded to conduct the Public auction and fixed the date on 14.11.2024 and thereby directed the Court Commissioner to do the commissioner work of conducting auction of the property. Accordingly, the Court Commissioner proceeded with public auction of the property as per law. In that process one K.P.Santosh and Maravakere Narayana Shivakumar have deposited Rs.10,00,000/- and shown their interest in participating the public auction. Ultimately the Court Commissioner conducted the public auction of the schedule property. As per law except the said persons none of the publics have shown their interest to purchase the property and as such the said purchasers have declared as successive bidders. Against the said auction of the Sale property the respondent No.1 has filed application under order XXI Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the said order. 11. Initially, the said application was dismissed by the learned predecessor in office against which the respondent No.1 preferred W.P.No.17134/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the said matter the petition allowed in part on 04.05.2025 and directed this Court to proceed in accordance with law by considering the application of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 the respondent No.1 and objections filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, this court proceeded with the matter. During pendency of the said Writ Petition. The respondent No.1 had led his evidence as RW-1 on 24.06.2025 and got marked the certified copy of the memo filed by the Court Commissioner as Ex.R.1 and Mahazar as Ex.R.2. The evidence of RW-1 is nothing but replication of the contents of the IA No.10 application filed by the respondent No.1. Since, I have exhaustively narrated the said contents in the above paragraphs and as such I do not want to repeat the same herein again. 12. By considering all these facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the respondent for one or other reason is protracting the proceedings of this suit. Ever since 2013 and he has taken the Court for granted, he continuously indulged in the act of abusing the process of law, and also wasting the precious time of this Court. Such conduct of the respondent cannot be entertain at any stretch of imagination. 13. Apart from this it is worth to note that, the Court Commissioner has submitted his detailed report about the procedure followed by him while conducting the public auction. The petitioners, respondents, their respective counsels, bidders and the mahazar witness were present before the Court. All of them have affixed their signature in the presence of Court Bailiff. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that, when one bidder is qualified the first option is to re-tender the work. But in this case on hand, for the first time on 20.07.2024 through Court Commissioner an auction was conducted. However, none have come forward for purchase of the property. Thereafter, the second auction was conducted on 14.11.2024 on that day the bidder by name K.P.Santosh and Narayana Shivakumar came forward for participate in the bid auction and ultimately they have decided as successful bidders. Therefore, in my opinion the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 Court Commissioner no other option except to accept the bidder who participated in the public auction at the second time. Hence, no fault or ir-regularities is forthcoming in the said public auction dated 14.11.2024. Hence, this Court feels that the auction conducted by the Court Commissioner is as per law established in the provisions of CPC. Therefore, does not warranted any interference. 15. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court of this country directed the Trial Courts to expediate the Final Decree Proceedings as the said proceedings are intended to be a continuous of the suit to provide a fair and efficient resolution and the Final Decree must be in confirmative with the preliminary decree. Further the Hon’ble Court has held that the court should suo-moto initiate the FDP immediately after passing the decree. It is unfortunate to say that the petitioner have filed the suit in the year 1992. preliminary decree has been passed in the year 2012, this Final Decree Proceedings has been conducted more than a decade without any fruitful result. Under these circumstances, if the court further proceeded with the matter by conducting re-sale of public auction of the property it is nothing but abuse of process of law. 16. By considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, if the application is allowed entire the petitioner will not get the fruits of the decree. At the cost of the repetation I would like to say that the efforts made by the respondent No.1 has been reached after the Hon'ble Apex Court and wherein he fail to succeed. Thereafter, in the second round he has filed the present application only with an intention to delay the proceedings. Hence, the application filed by the respondent No.1 is devoid of merits and same is liable to be rejected. With these reasons I answer Point No.1 in the Negative. 17. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons and my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 ORDER I.A.No.X filed by the respondent No.1 counsels Under Order XXI Rule 90 r/w section 151 of CPC is hereby rejected. No order as to cost.” 9. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the findings have been recorded to the effect that the prescribed procedure including the procedure contemplated under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC had indeed been followed by the trial Court while conducting the public auction in which the petitioner had participated and the conduct of the petitioner would clearly estop him from subsequently challenging the impugned sale and in the absence of any demonstrable material to establish fraud or irregularity that would vitiate the impugned sale, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner by assigning cogent and valid reasons, which do not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 10. Insofar as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner (stated supra) are concerned, the same were rendered in the facts and circumstances obtained in the said cases; while there could be no dispute regarding the proposition - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 laid down in the said judgments, the same would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances obtained in the instant case, which have been correctly and properly recorded by the trial Court, in particular, the conduct of the petitioner in participating in the court public auction, thereby indicating that the petitioner was not entitled to subsequently challenge the auction sale. 11. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be set to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be set to have occasioned any failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam and Others Vs. Chhabi Nath and Others – (2015) 5 SCC 423; K.P.Natarajan and Others Vs. Muthalammal and Others – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V.Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and it is disposed of. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the final - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6435 WP No. 35199 of 2025 decree proceedings within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2026 filed for impleading does not survive for consideration and it is disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7