SMT. SHANTA BAI S. HUNASIMARAD AND OTHERS Vs. TOTAPPA MADIVALAPPA SOMANTRI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag, thereby accepting the highest bid of the auction purchaser -respondent No. 2 herein, is called in question in this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONERS -Judgment Debtors are the owners of the property sold. Respondent No. 1 herein had filed a suit in O.S. No. 152/1997 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Gadag, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale against the deceased husband of petitioner No. 1. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the sons of deceased Shivappa Hunasimarad. The suit for specific performance was partly decreed directing the deceased husband to pay Rs. 20,000/ - with interest at 18% per annum. The prayer for specific performance of the contract was rejected.

(3.) THE impugned order, therefore, has got two effects, the first being dismissal of the application under Order 21, Rules 89 and 90 of CPC filed by the judgment -debtor and the second being in the nature of permission granted to the auction purchaser to deposit the amount in the Court by way of acceptance of the bid. Petitioner is before this Court challenging this order in so far as it has the effect of granting permission to the purchaser to deposit the amount by accepting the bid. Subsequently, the Executing Court has confirmed the same on 17.02.2007. In fact, the original records summoned from the Executing Court disclose that after passing the impugned order, the matter was adjourned to 06.01.2007 for confirmation of sale. On 06.01.2007, the judgment -debtors filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking postponement of confirmation of sale and the matter was adjourned to 20.01.2007 for filing objections. On20.01.2007, the matter was adjourned to 17.02.2007 again for filing objections. On 17.02.2007, it was contended by the judgment -debtors that they had filed the present writ petition (W.P. No. 360/2007) before this Court challenging the order passed on 16.12.2006 and therefore confirmation of sale may be deferred. However, the Executing Court noticing the fact that no interim order had been granted by this Court, proceeded to dismiss the application and the sale came to be confirmed by order dated 02.03.2007.