- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4098 WP No. 38969 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 38969 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI T. SUBHASH CHANDRA, S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.69/1, GROUND FLOOR, HOUSE NO.6, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M. H. PRABHAKARA, S/O HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A MARANAVAMIDODDI, BESAGARAHALLI POST, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 149. 2. SRI. CHIKKATHAMMAIAH S/O LATE DYAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A MARASINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 419. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.08.2023 IN EXE. NO. 64/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4098 WP No. 38969 of 2025 THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN.), AT MADDUR BY DISMISSING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D2. 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 In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the similar nature quashing impugned order dated 03.08.2023 in Exe.No.64/2007 vide Annexure-E passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.), at Maddur by dismissing the application under Section 151 of CPC vide Annexure-D2; b) Grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is a son of one Dr. Thimmegowda, who was a defendant in O.S.No.115/2006 filed by Chikkathammaiah, for recovery of sum - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4098 WP No. 38969 of 2025 of Rs.1,43,497/- together with future interest and other reliefs. By the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2006, the trial Court decreed the said suit ex-parte as against petitioner's father Thimmegowda in favour of the plaintiff-Chikkathammaiah. In pursuance of the said judgment and decree, the respondent No.2-Decree Holder/Plaintiff instituted the instant execution proceedings in Ex.64/2007, in which the aforesaid Thimmegowda, father of the petitioner was arrayed as a Judgment Debtor. Since the said Thimmegowda did not pay the decreed amount to the decree holder, the suit/execution schedule property was brought to public auction in which the respondent No.1 purchased the same on 21.06.2011 and deposited the entire sale consideration on 04.07.2011, in pursuance of which, the execution petition was closed on 23.07.2011. 4. However, subsequently since the Executing Court did not issue a Sale Certificate in favour of the respondent No.1 - Auction Purchaser, he moved an application under Section 151, which was allowed by the Executing Court vide the impugned Order dated 03.08.2023 directing issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of the Auction Purchaser, in whose favour the sale had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4098 WP No. 38969 of 2025 attained finality and become conclusive and binding not only upon aforesaid Thimmegowda but also the petitioner, who was his son. Subsequently, pursuant to the demise of Dr. Thimmegowda in the year 2023, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Executing Court has correctly and properly considered and appreciated the entire material on record including the undisputed fact that the sale in favour of the respondent No.1 - Auction Purchaser had attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon all parties and as such, the Sale Certificate was to be issued in favour of the respondent No.1 - Auction Purchaser. It is needless to state that the judgment and decree and the sale having attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon Dr.Thimmegowda, and the petitioner, who claims through and under him as his son is not entitled to challenge the issuance of Sale Certificate pursuant to the sale conducted in favour of respondent No.1. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4098 WP No. 38969 of 2025 material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39