Dismissed

Arasappa S/O Ramanna Waddar v. Hudco Niwas a Division of Housing and Anr.

Karnataka HC21 Jul 2016WP/202698/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petitioner challenged the sale warrant issued by the Executing Court for auctioning his property due to a loan default. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the long pendency and partial payment did not warrant quashing the order that had already granted time for repayment.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Arasappa S/O Ramanna Waddar Vs Hudco Niwas a… — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.202698/2016 (GM-CPC)

¶8

Between:

¶9

Arasappa S/o Ramanna Waddar Aged about 48 years, Occ: Service R/at H.No.3-3-108/3 Berur Khila, Raichur – 584 102

¶10

… Petitioner

¶11

(By Sri I.R. Biradar, Advocate and Sri G.G. Chagashetty, Advocate)

¶12

And:

¶13

HUDCO NIWAS

¶14

A Division of Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd, (HUDCO) A Government of India Enterprises Having its Registered Office at HUDCO Bhavan, India Habitant Centre Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003 And its Regional Office at Manipal Center, Unit No.703, 704, 7^th Floor, North Block No.47, Dickenson Road, Bangalore-560042. Represented by its Authorised Signatory Smt. Prabha Karunakaran, Law Officer.

¶15

¶16

Shivanandayya S/o Father name not known To the petitioner, Aged about: 56 Years, Occ: Service, R/at Door No.12/150 Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar Raichur – 584 102

¶17

… Respondents

¶18

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Raichur in EP No.47/2006 produced at Annexure-D and etc.

¶19

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 29.04.2016, passed by the Principal District Judge Raichur, whereby the learned Judge had issued the Sale Warrant and Sale Proclamation for the sale of immovable property belonging to the petitioner.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2002, the petitioner had borrowed a loan of Rs.2,65,000/from HUDCO NIWAS, the respondent No.1, for purchasing an old house. However, as he failed to pay the loan amount, the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit

¶23

¶24

for recovery of money. The suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1, by order dated 11.11.2005. The petitioner, as the judgment debtor, was directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,68,500/- to the respondent. Since the petitioner did not pay the said amount, the respondent No.1 initiated the execution proceedings before the learned Judge on 02.12.2006. From 02.12.2006 the case was hanging fire till 29.04.2016. Hence, on 29.04.2016, the Executing Court issued a Sale Warrant and Sale Proclamation for the sale of the immovable property of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the issuance of the Sale Warrant and the Sale Proclamation, on 22.06.2016 the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- and on 15.07.2016, he has further paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque. Thus the petitioner has already paid a sum of

¶26

¶27

Rs.6,95,000/out of a total due amount of

¶28

Rs.8,30,731/-. Secondly as the petitioner has already paid a large portion of the amount due, this Court should grant time to the petitioner to pay the remaining amount.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶30

A bare perusal of the order dated 29.04.2016, clearly reveals that on the said date neither petitioner, nor his counsel was present before the Executing Court. Since the case had been pending ever since 2006, the learned Judge had no other option but to issue the Sale Warrant and the Sale Proclamation for the sale of immovable property belonging to the petitioner. The subsequent orders dated 22.06.2016 and 25.06.2016 further reveal that the learned Executing Court had already granted time to the petitioner till 19.07.2016 to repay the balance amount. Thus, the petitioner has

¶31

¶32

been granted sufficient time for repaying the balance amount.

¶33

The petitioner, as the judgment debtor, cannot be permitted to prolong the execution proceedings, as already the execution proceedings have been pending since 2006. Even, after a decade the petitioner prays for further time to pay the remaining amount. Such an act on the part of the petitioner can never be appreciated by a Court of law. Merely because he has paid a large part of the amount due does not entitle him to seek further mercy from this Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order dated 29.04.2016.

¶34

This petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

msr

Arasappa S/O Ramanna Waddar v. Hudco Niwas a Division of Housing and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arasappa S/O Ramanna Waddar v. Hudco Niwas a Division of Housing and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Mallappa Nidoni W/O Mallappa Nidoni Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Ramesh S/O Bhaurao Kharande Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Jabbar Nihal Wati Altaf Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Basangowda Vs the Director

Saraswatamma W/O Kumar Gouda Vs Shivapa S/O Shankarappa and Ors.

Basavantrao S/O Vithalrao Patil Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.