Smt Prathima Reddy Vs Tumukur Merchants Credit… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Prathima Reddy Vs Tumukur Merchants Credit… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; executing Court in Ex.No.70/2024 directed to pass orders on the petitioner's I.A.No.3 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC within 3 months, expeditiously, hearing all parties, with liberty to impose costs for unnecessary protraction; executing Court not to proceed further with the warrant of sale until disposal of that application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the executing Court could proceed to conclude execution and issue a warrant of sale while the objector-petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC (I.A.No.3) remained undisposed, and whether directions were warranted for its disposal before further execution steps.

Court's answer

The executing Court kept the objector's Order 21 Rule 97 application pending yet proceeded further to issue a warrant of sale; per this Court, that may not be the correct procedure, and the executing Court ought first to have disposed of the application before proceeding in the execution proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

The rights of the objector (the petitioner) would have to be decided, either way, by the executing Court.

Key takeaways

Direction: the executing Court in Ex.No.70/2024 shall pass orders on the petitioner's application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC within a period of 3 months from receipt of copy of the order, expeditiously, providing opportunity to all parties concerned, with liberty to impose costs on parties unnecessarily prolonging or protracting the proceedings.ratio¶74
Protective direction: the executing Court shall not proceed further with the warrant of sale until disposal of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.ratio¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution — Objector's application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC pending — Warrant of sale issued without disposing of it held impermissible — Petitioner, wife of Judgment Debtor No.1 in Ex.No.70/2024 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar), claimed co-ownership of Sy.No.1 (New Sy.No.1/9), Anchemuskur Village, Malur Taluk, asserting her parents provided major purchase funds; she filed partition suit O.S.No.169/2025 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur) with interim injunction against alienation — Decree holder (Tumukur Merchants Credit Co Operative Ltd.) contended the application was abuse of process to prolong proceedings, alleging the petitioner acted as special power attorney and filed a memo consenting to sale — Held: executing Court ought to have disposed of the Order 21 Rule 97 application before issuing warrant of sale; objector's rights to be decided by executing Court; directed disposal within 3 months with opportunity to all parties, liberty to impose costs for protraction, and restraint from proceeding with warrant of sale until disposal; timeline adopted as per Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.3640-3642/2025 — Writ petition allowed (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28508 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT PRATHIMA REDDY W/O SRI ANAND REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.82, 5TH CROSS ROAD ROYAL HERMITAGE, GOTTIGERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 083.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SWAMY H.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

TUMUKUR MERCHANTS CREDIT CO OPERATIVE LTD VEERASHAIVA KALYANA MANTAPA BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, J.C. ROAD, TUMUKUR- 572 101. BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 143, ARJUN ARCADE, 9TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE- 11 REP BY ITS MANAGER, LOAN SECTION SRI. NANDAN.P.R S/O SRI RAMESH.P.N AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT.

SRI ANAND REDDY.C S/O CHINNASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.82 ROYAL HERMITAGE,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

OPPOSITE TO SHERWOOD LIGHT SCHOOL, GOTTIGERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 083

SRI SRIDHAR.M S/O MUNNISWAMY REDDY K.H AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.64, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS ROAD, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 076

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. AKKIMANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND 3 D/W V/O DTD 09.10.2025)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER OF SALE WARRANT DATED. 02-09-2025 PASSED IN EXECUTION CASE NO.70/2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE LOWER COURT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER/OBJECTOR'S I.A.NO.3 WHICH IS FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 97 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

following reliefs:

[1] Issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order of sale warrant dated: 02-09-2025 passed in Execution Case No.70/2024 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar as per Annexure-E and consequently issue directions to the lower court to consider the petitioner/objector's I.A.No.3 which is filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, in accordance with law.

[2] Issue any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice and equity.

The Petitioner in this case is none other than

the wife of respondent No.2, i.e., the Judgment Debtor in the execution proceedings.

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is the wife of judgment debtor No.1/respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC as an objector in Ex.No.70/2024 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar contending that while purchasing the property in question bearing

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

Sy.No.1 (New Sy.No.1/9) situated at Anchemuskur Village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, to the extent of 3 acres 15 guntas on 23.02.2004 through registered sale deed, her parents have given major money and being petitioner's husband and kartha of the family, Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2 has purchased the said property.

It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said property has not been purchased out of the earnings of Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2. The revenue entries were changed in the name of Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2 on the basis of the sale deed, and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, petitioner has right over the property as a co-owner who is in joint possession along with Judgment Debtor No. 1/respondent No.2.

It is also contended that Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2 has mortgaged the suit schedule

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

property to the decree holder/respondent No.1 without having any independent right to mortgage the said property. Petitioner has filed a suit for partition for her legitimate share in the suit schedule property against

judgment debtor No.1 in O.S.No.169/2025 which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur and in that case there is an interim order of injunction not to alienate the suit schedule property. Hence, the petitioner has sought for permission to contest the execution petition as an objector which is initiated by the respondent No.1/decree holder by filing application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the said application has not been

considered by the executing Court. No orders have been passed on said application, despite objections having been filed by the respondent No. 1/Decree Holder. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the executing Court has proceeded further to conclude the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

proceedings and has now issued a warrant of sale to auction the property, which is illegal, arbitrary, and the application of the petitioner has not been considered and is still pending, the same could not have been done by the

learned Judge of the Executing Court. Accordingly, aggrieved by the issuance of the Warrant of Sale and nonconsideration of her application filed under 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure petitioner is before this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel Sri.R.Subramanya, representing the respondent No.1/decree holder, vehemently contends that this is a tactic adopted by the petitioner to prolong and protract the proceedings for the

simple reason that she is none other than the wife of Judgment Debtor No. 1/respondent No.2 who has participated in the execution proceedings and in fact the petitioner has acted as a special power of attorney of the

Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2 and has conducted the execution proceedings on behalf of Judgment Debtor No.1/respondent No.2. This itself

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

apparently goes to establish that the petitioner is only interested in prolonging or protracting the matter. Petitioner ought to have pressed the matter before the executing Court to address arguments and secure an order on the application filed by her but rather has kept quiet and, in fact has even filed a memo to contend that she is agreeable for the sale of the property and the proceeds thereon to be taken by the bank as entitled and the balance amount to be paid either to Judgment debtor No.1/respondent No.2 or to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire process initiated by filing the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC is nothing but abuse of process of the Court as well as law only to prolong and protract the proceedings.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that during the pendency of these proceedings, the petitioner has filed a suit for partition, which is pending adjudication, based on which the present application is filed to protract and prolong the proceedings.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The fact remains that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC is still pending and the same has not been disposed of. The executing Court ought to have disposed of the application filed by the petitioner and proceeded further in the execution proceedings; rather than that, the executing Court has kept the application pending and proceeded further to issue warrant of sale, which may not be the correct procedure to be followed. The rights of the objector who is the petitioner in this case would have to be decided, either way, by the executing Court.

Under the circumstances it is obligatory on the

part of the executing Court to pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner who is the objector and thereafter proceed further. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is right in contending that her application requires to be disposed of

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

in accordance with law, and thereafter the executing Court

shall proceed further. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

ORDER

The petition is allowed .

2. The executing Court in Ex.No.70/2024 shall

pass orders on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and shall proceed to pass orders expeditiously by providing opportunity to all the parties concerned and the executing Court is at liberty to impose cost on the parties unnecessarily prolonging or protracting the proceedings.

3. It is needless to mention that the executing

Court shall not proceed further with the warrant of sale until disposal of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:39989 WP No. 28508 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal No.3640-3642/2025 . The executing Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order as per the said judgment.

The present case on hand is only the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC which has to be disposed of. Objections are already filed. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the executing Court to make an endeavour to dispose of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35