Vijayashree Marketers and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to the identity details of the property to be sold and under the impugned order issued the sale warrant. the decree had become final. the objections filed before the executing court came to be overruled and the same had become final. now under the impugned order the trial court issued sale warrant. there is no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. regarding on issue of sale notice as contemplated under rule 54 of order 21 of the civil procedure code, 1908, admittedly the petitioners are represented by their advocate before the trial court. in the presence of both the parties and their advocates the executing court passed the impugned order by following the procedure. therefore the question of issuing separate sale notice to the petitioners will not arise. - since the petitioners failed to pay the decretal amount the respondent initiated execution proceedings in execution no......before this court.3. the decree in misc. no. 30 of 1996 had become final. the objections filed by the petitioners before the executing court came to be overruled on 13-7-2007 and the same had become final. now under the impugned order the trial court issued sale warrant. i find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.4. learned counsel for the petitioners contend that no sale notice is issued as contemplated under rule 54 of order 21 of the civil procedure code, 1908. admittedly the petitioners are represented by their advocate before the trial court. in the presence of both the parties and their advocates the executing court passed the impugned order by following the procedure. therefore the question of issuing separate sale notice to the petitioners will not arise. i find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. accordingly, the petitions are hereby rejected.

Judgment:

ORDER

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed calling in question the order dated 18-4-2009 in Execution No. 22 of 2006 passed by the District Judge at Chitradurga issuing sale warrant in respect of B and C Schedule properties.

2. In Misc. No. 30 of 1996 the respondent secured a decree against the petitioners for recovery of money. Since the petitioners failed to pay the decretal amount the respondent initiated execution proceedings in Execution No. 22 of 2006 on the file of District Judge, Chitradurga. The petitioners entered appearance before the Executing Court and filed objections opposing the execution proceedings. The Executing Court vide order dated 13-7-2007 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. This order of the Trial Court had become final. Thereafter the Executing Court verified the affidavit filed by the respondent with regard to the identity details of the property to be sold and under the impugned order issued the sale warrant. Aggrieved by this order of the Executing Court, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. The decree in Misc. No. 30 of 1996 had become final. The objections filed by the petitioners before the Executing Court came to be overruled on 13-7-2007 and the same had become final. Now under the impugned order the Trial Court issued sale warrant. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend that no sale notice is issued as contemplated under Rule 54 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Admittedly the petitioners are represented by their Advocate before the Trial Court. In the presence of both the parties and their Advocates the Executing Court passed the impugned order by following the procedure. Therefore the question of issuing separate sale notice to the petitioners will not arise. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petitions are hereby rejected.