Karnataka High Court
WP/32617/2017 of SRI. S. DURAIRAJ Vs SMT. THANGAMMA JAYAPRAKASH on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010178152017 NC: 2026:KHC:52791 WP No. 32617 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 32617 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. DURAIRAJ S/O SRI G SEEYALAM
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 32617 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. S. DURAIRAJ
S/O SRI G SEEYALAM
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.734, 2ND STAGE
7TH CROSS, MAYURA CIRCLE
VIJAYANAGARA POST, HEBBALA
MYSORE 570017
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. THANGAMMA JAYAPRAKASH
W/O DR N JAYAPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.920, 22ND MAIN , 4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR , BANGALORE 11
ALSO AT NO.9, RATHBLAME
ANTRIM , NORTHERN IRELAND , U.K
BY HER GPA HOLDER, S KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O A V SUBRAMANYARAJE URS,
NO.207, VARAPRADHA III MAIN,
10TH CROSS, JANATHA NAGARA, MYSORE -9
2.
CHANAKYA FINANCE CORPORATION (R)
A FIRM OF PARTNERS, HAVING ITS
REGD OFFICE AT NO.381, II CROSS
Verified
HC-KAR
BENKI NAWAB STREET, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE-560 023.
3.
A L NANJUNDARAJE URS
S/O LATE LINGARAJE URS
NO.725/D, VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD,
II CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSORE 23
4.
RAJEEVALOCHANA
S/O SRI Y V VENKATESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.265, 8TH CROSS, M BLOCK,
KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-23.
5.
A JAYAPRAKASH
S/O LATE APPAU PILLAI
DOOR NO.330, 10TH CROSS,
3RD STAGE, GOKULAM
MYSORE-23.
6.
SRI A M MONAPPA
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
D.NO.2041, NEAR HELATH OFFICE
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
7.
M K BIDDAPPA
S/O M S KARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KARVALE BADAGA VILLAGE,
FMC COLLEGE POST,
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
8.
A NAGARATHNA
W/O SRI R SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
NO.834, 1ST MAIN, KAMATAGERI
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-23
Verified
HC-KAR
9.
H N DAKSHYANI
W/O SRI RAMESH,
NO.834, 1ST CROSS, KAMATGERI,
MANDIMOHALLA, MYSORE-23.
10.
SMT A M LALITHA
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PARTNER,
CHANAKYA FINANCE CORPORATION (R)
A FIRM OF PARTNERS,
HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT NO.381,
II CROSS, BENKI NAWAB STREET,
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-23.
11.
SMT LEELAVATHY
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PARTNER,
CHANAKYA FINANCE CORPORATION (R)
A FIRM OF PARTNERS, HAVING ITS
REGD OFFICE AT NO.381, II CROSS
BENKI NAWAB STREET, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE-23.
…RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE NOT NECESSARY IN R/O OF R1 TO R5, R7, R10, R11; V/O DATED 15.03.2022, R8 AND R9 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 13.04.2022, NOTICE TO R6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE II ADDL. I
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSORE IN EX.NO.372/2013 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B TO CONFIRM THE AUCTION SALE CONDUCTED
ON 30.1.2016 BEFORE THE COURT AND ISSUE THE SALE DEED
TO THE AUCTION PURCHASER AND CONSEQUENTLY DISPOSE
OF THE MATTER ON MERITS AND ACCORDING TO LAW.
Verified
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
This matter is de-linked from W.P.No.33718/2015.
2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief; “a) Issue writ of mandamus or order or direction of appropriate nature directing the II Addl. I Civil Judge and JMFC, at Mysore in Ex.No.372/2013 i.e., Annexure-B to confirm the auction sale conducted on 30.01.2026 before the Court and issue the sale deed to the auction purchaser who is the petitioner herein and consequently dispose of the matter on merits and according to law in the interest of justice.
b) Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this proceedings.”
3. The petitioner, claiming to be the auction purchaser, has approached this Court seeking a direction
Verified
HC-KAR
to the Executing Court to confirm the auction sale conducted on 30.01.2016 and consequently to issue a sale deed in his favour.
4. The matter has remained pending since the year 2017, primarily on account of non-service of notice on most of the respondents. However, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the present petition, this Court finds that no order or proceedings of the Executing Court are under challenge. The petitioner is essentially seeking a direction to the Executing Court to consider and conclude the auction proceedings.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the auction conducted on 30.01.2016, he was declared the successful bidder and claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.21,35,000/- towards the bid amount. It is contended that, despite the auction having been conducted and the bid amount having been deposited, the Executing Court
Verified
HC-KAR
has not brought the auction proceedings to their logical conclusion. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought, this Court is of the considered view that service of notice on the respondents is not necessary for the purpose of issuing an appropriate direction to the Executing Court.
6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of the auction sale and consequential issuance of a sale deed are matters which necessarily fall for consideration by the Executing Court. The Executing Court shall examine the same in accordance with law, including compliance with the requirements prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly with regard to deposit of the sale consideration within the prescribed time and the legal consequences flowing from such compliance or otherwise.
7. Having regard to the fact that the execution proceedings in Ex.No.372/2013 have been pending since 2013 and the auction is stated to have been conducted as
Verified
HC-KAR
far back as on 30.01.2016, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to have his grievance considered and the pending auction proceedings brought to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The Executing Court seized of Ex.No.372/2013 is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the auction sale conducted on 30.01.2016 and pass appropriate orders thereon, including on the prayer for confirmation of the sale and issuance of the consequential sale deed, strictly in accordance with law and the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(ii) All contentions of the parties are left open.
Verified
HC-KAR
(iii) The Executing Court shall endeavour to consider and dispose of the aforesaid proceedings expeditiously.
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Verified