The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court can exercise power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the proceedings and that the petitioner must approach the court with clean hands and not engage in dilatory tactics to prolong the litigation.

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, arraigned as the Respondent No.2, in Misc. Petition No.157/2014, pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, has sought for a declaration that the institution of the said petition, under Section 47 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908 as constituting gross abuse of process of law and to set aside an order dated 17.08.2015 passed therein, “posting the matter for orders on the main petition as well as an interlocutory application.”

2. The basic facts which are necessary to decide this petition are as follows:

The Karnataka State Financial Corporation, having obtained a decree for recovery of Rs.2,61,28,017.57/had filed Execution Petition No.33/2000, to enforce the said decree dated 15.11.1999. Sale Proclamation having been issued and the Court auction in respect of the property shown in the schedule of the execution petition having been conducted and sale having been made, IA No.3 was filed, under Order XXI Rule 94 read with Section 151 of CPC, for confirmation of the sale by auction. The said application was allowed on 27.08.2005, making the sale, which was accepted on 19.04.2003, absolute. Sale Certificate ordered to be issued pursuant to the order dated 27.08.2005, was issued on 09.09.2005. I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent, under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC, to set aside the sale by auction, was considered and an order rejecting the same was passed on 16.01.2006. Certain other proceedings have taken place and they being not relevant to decide the point in issue in this petition, are not adverted to.

The respondent has filed Misc.Petition No.157/2014, under Section 47 of CPC, to declare that the sale declared on 19.04.2003, confirmed on 27.08.2005 and Sale Certificate issued on 09.09.2005 are void, nullity and nonest in the eye of law. The Karnataka State Financial Corporation, arraigned as the first respondent, has filed its statement of objections on 13.02.2015. The petitioner, arraigned as the respondent No.2, has filed his objections on 04.04.2015. A statement having been made that there is no oral evidence to lead, the petition was posted on 15.04.2015 for hearing of arguments. Written arguments of the petitioner in the Misc.Petition was filed on 15.04.2015. Arguments on behalf of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation was heard on 29.07.2015. To hear the arguments of respondent No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein, the case was adjourned to 06.08.2015. On that day, I.A.No.1, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed. Arguments of both sides having been heard on 17.08.2015, petition was adjourned to 19.08.2015, for passing of the orders on the Misc. Petition and IA.No.1. This petition was filed on 24.08.2015, for grant of the aforesaid relief’s.

3. Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Advocate and Sri S.Sriranga, learned Advocate, contended that the decision to proceed with passing of orders, simultaneously on the main petition and I.A.No.1, suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness and even otherwise, the impugned order is erroneous and illegal. Learned Advocates submitted that the procedure which has been adopted by the Trial Judge being suffering from material irregularity, interference is called for. Learned Advocates contended that it is not open to the Trial Judge to decide main matter and I.A.No.1 simultaneously. According to the learned Advocates, I.A.No.1 filed, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is required to be decided before the consideration and passing of order on the main Misc.Petition. No arguments in support of the other prayers sought in this writ petition was addressed.

4. Sri B.V.Acharya, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, by taking me through statement of objections filed on 04.09.2015 to this writ petition, contended that the petitioner having taken 13 adjournments to argue the matter and ultimately, after the learned Advocate for t