THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1069 of 2002 Date: 14.11.2011 Between: K. Hemalatha Rajkumar … Petitioners AND N.C. Narayana Swamy and 10 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.1069 of 2002 ORDER: The second respondent ﬁled a suit for partition. Inter alia, it is the case of Sri K. Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that while the parties are Christians, the second respondent laid the petition under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The respondents 3 to 11 are not active participants in the case. 2. On 30.10.1998, a preliminary decree was passed. When the question of passing a ﬁnal decree by meats and bounds came up for consideration, it was realized that certain property was not partible. Consequently, by invoking the provisions of Partition Act, the property was brought to auction. The ﬁrst respondent has purchased the property in the auction. Thereafter, a final decree was passed on 04.12.2001. 3. The petitioner, subsequently, laid O.S.No.404 of 2001 seeking for the setting aside the decree on the ground that it was passed under the provisions in the Hindu Succession Act while the parties are Christians. The ﬁrst respondent, who is the auction purchaser, in his turn ﬁled E.P.No.73 of 2002 for delivery of the property. An ex parte order was passed on 22.02.2002 in the execution petition. The petitioner contended that notice was not issued to her and that the delivery order, therefore, is non est. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the order under impugned in E.P.No.73 of 2002 is a non-speaking order and that the property involved is subject matter of O.S.No.404 of 2001. He also urged that the land in question was assigned land and the property was not entitled to be sold to the ﬁrst respondent. He, therefore, submitted that the execution petition is liable to be dismissed in limini. 5. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the auction purchaser/ﬁrst respondent contended that the property was purchased not through a private sale, but, through a public auction. He further contended that the question of the property being assigned land and is not subject to auction is not for the petitioner to question. It would be the prerogative of the Government to consider whether the auctioned property is assigned land and is not subject to auction. 6. The ﬁrst respondent admittedly paid the entire sale consideration constituting ` 7,76,000/-. Some of the defendants ﬁled an Interlocutory Application seeking for stay of delivery of possession of the auctioned property in favour of the ﬁrst respondent. The petition was dismissed. The learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent pointed out that the possession of the auction property was already delivered to the ﬁrst respondent and that nothing survives in this execution petition. It may be noticed that the petitioner laid O.S.No.404 of 2001. If the question of delivery of the property in favour of the ﬁrst respondent is to be questioned, it is in O.S.No.404 of 2001, as delivery was already eﬀected so far as the present E.P. is concerned. Where the delivery was already eﬀected in the E.P., I agree with the learned counsel for the ﬁrst respondent that nothing survives in this case and the very revision becomes infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is found to be devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed, as it is more or less infructuous. No costs. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 14.11.2011 Isn