ORDER

Petitioner being the appellant in Execution case No.63/2018 pending on the file of the learned Prl.Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhadravathi is impugning the order dated 07.06.2022 rejecting IA Nos.5 filed under Order 21 Rule 97 R/w Section 151 CPC and order dated 29.06.2022 rejecting IA No.6 under Order 21 Rule 14 R/w Section 151 of CPC and order dated 29.06.2022 passed on IA No.7 under Order 21 Rule

32(5) R/w Section 151 of CPC.

2. Heard Sri. Somashekharaiah.R.P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Venkatesha.T.S., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Prabhakar.L.Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioner contended that petitioner being the appellant is an innocent lady and she was cheated by her sons who are arrayed as respondent Nos.2 and 3. They concocted a gift deed and also executed an agreement of sale in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. When this was brought to the notice of petitioner, she insisted her sons to cancel the gift deed and accordingly got the gift deed cancelled.

4. In the meantime, the decree holder filed execution case and put decree into execution. When the delivery warrant was sought to be executed, petitioner came know about the same and filed objector application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The executing Court has not considered application on merits but mechanically proceeded to dismiss all the applications IA Nos.5 to 7 without assigning any valid reasons.

5. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is ready and willing to pay the amount as undertaken before this Court as per order dated 21.12.2023. However, at least a week’s time may be granted for making such payment. Accordingly, he prays for passing appropriate order.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that decree was obtained by respondent No.1 for return of the earnest amount paid under the agreement to sell dated 03.05.2014. Inspite of decreeing the suit for return of the earnest amount, till date same is not repaid. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being defendants in the suit are the sons of the present petitioner. They have executed the agreement to sell on 03.05.2014 and contested the suit. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking to be impleaded in the suit, which was came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, it is the contention of the petitioner that the gift deed executed by her in favour of her sons was cancelled.

7. Learned counsel submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed Civil Revision Petition No.311/2019 and Writ Petition No.9417/2021 before this Court taking untenable contentions. Both these petitions came to be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The trial Court has given sufficient opportunity for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to the petitioner to pay the amount which is due under the decree. Inspite of that there was no payment made. Finally, the property was brought for auction sale. Respondent No.4 purchased the same by depositing huge amount of Rs.29,15,000/-. Sale certificate was issued and the sale deed was executed. Delivery warrant was also issued. At that time, the petitioner again interfered in executing the delivery warrant in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 sought for issuance of delivery warrant with police help. At that juncture, petitioner filed IA Nos.5 to 7 to come on record as a objector. The executing Court assigned valid reasons for rejecting the applications. There are no bonafides in the contention taken by the petitioner. The conduct of petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 discloses that they are hand in glow with one another to deny the right of the decree holder and the auction purchaser.

8. Leaned counsel also drawn attention of the order sheet dated 21.12.2023. Wherein, the learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to pay Rs.3,50,000/- on or before 06.01.2024 and another sum of Rs.4,10,000/- within another 6 weeks ther