1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 23 day ol September. 201 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM CtvilRevtsion PeLUtonNo 298 o201 0 BETWEEN: NAMEGOWDA 5/0 THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 0CC: AGRICULI4JRIST, R/C) YELEKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLL PANDAVAPURA TALU K. MANDYA DJSTRI(T 571401 PETI’IiONER [By Sri V N Madhava Reddv & Sri 1-3 M Kenchegowda Advs I AND: RFM KA W, 0 RAMK( )\kDA AGED \130L 43LAR (KE AG1-I( LIURNI. R/ODAM\DM1 IVILI \ KASAE3A IIOBUI 1 ANDAVAI I MANDY 515 1 1( 1 571 10 1)/C) YMrGUVi\ AGED ABC )t T 2 lEAPS - ‘.T) i TT U( ( LiL U7 () YET EKPRF VILLA’ i. F’LV,AE;-. DC ‘PLi iA\[5’APL.UA \L\D’-’. iSSTRi I s! ID 2 CIVIL REVISION PETI liON IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC FIl ED AGAINS1 II IE JUDGMEN I DA lET) 19 08 2010 PASSEI) IN MISCANO58/2009 ON FIlE FILF OF IIIE CIVIL JUDGE (SR DN) AND JMFC AND MAC F, PANDAVAPURA, DISMISSING E APPEAL FILED CONFIRMING E ORDER DATED:30062009 PASSED IN IANO9INEXNO23/2001 ON IHF FIIF OF (IVILJFDGE (JRDN) AND JMFC, PANDAVAPL HA DISMISSING I A No 09 FILED 170 21 RULE 90 OF CPC AM) ETC, THIS CIVIL REVISION PFTITION COMING oN FoR HEARING. fHIS DA’i’ THE CVURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Judgment debtor as an revision against the order dated 19102010 passed in Misc Appeal No 58 of 2009, on the file of Cavil Judge (Sr Dn) & JMFC & MACT, Pandavapura, confirming the order passed on IA IX dated 30 6 2009 in Execution No 23 of 2001, on the file of Cavil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC Pandavapura onfirmang an 0 Jestao I 3 — had totally neglected to maintain them. On context, the suit In OS No 623 of 1999 was decreed, directing the petitioner-defendant to pay a maintenance of ! 500/- per month to first respondent till her death or remarriage and a sum of t 350/- per month in favour of second respondent till her marriage and a sum of t 250/- per month for plaintiffs- respondents 1 and 2 for separate residence from the date of suit. 4. It is not very dear as to whether there was any appeal action against the said judgment and decree, but it is seen that the respondents-plaintiffs filed Execution Case No 23 of 2001 for recovery of decretal amount. They sought attachment of immovable property of the petitioner defendant. Petitioner-defendant appears to have failed to pay any amount, consequent to which the learned judge of the executing court directed sale of immovable property of petitioner for recovery of decretal amount. It is also not very clear as to whether the executing court had followed the prescribed procedure for conduct of sale. However, it is P1 4 stated that though several times date for auction was fixed, there were no bidders and sale warrant were returned. Thereafter, the decree-holders-respondents appear to have filed an application seeking permission to bid in the auction. The executing court passed no order on that application. In the meanwhile, sale was conducted again, In which decree- holders-respondents participated and purchased the property for a sum of ? 1.40 lakh. The case was then listed for confirmation of sale. 5• petitioner-judgment debtor flied IA-IX under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale. The application was resisted by the decree-holders, contending that purchase made by them was after obtaining court permission and therefore the sale Is in order. judgment-debtor-petitioner on his part pointed out that the so-called auction was fraudulent. It is contended that against the value of 8,000/- to 10,000/- per gunta, the sale was conducted for a paltry sum at the Instance of the decree holders. He also questioned the sale V 5 on the ground that the decree-holders had not obtained the permission for the sale of property. 6. The executing court found no favour with the petitioner-judgment debtor and rejected the application, which he challenged in appeal. The learned appellate judge though referred to the fact that the executing court itself has recorded that the application filed by the decree-holders was pending consideration, has rejected the appeal, confirming the order passed by the executing court. Assailing it, the judgment debtor Is In revision. 7. The issue relates to a moot question as to whether the decree-holders had obtained permission to bid In the auction. Undoubtedly, for purchase of property In a bid by the decree holders, permission of the court Is required. In the absence of such permission, sale will be irregular. On a perusal of the record, it Is seen that the decree holders have merely filed an application seeking for permission to purchase the property in the bidding, but no order was passed on the application. In the result, the sale conducted in which the decree holders are 6 the only bidders can hardly be sustained and consequently the order passed by the executing court and affirmed by the appelléte court will have to be set aside. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Executing court is directed to consider the application filed under Rule 90 of Order 21 of CPC based on the facts and circumstances and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd! JUDGE *pjk