The Court emphasized mandatory compliance with statutory provisions in execution proceedings, particularly regarding notice to judgment debtors and the proper valuation of attached property.

ORAL ORDER

In W.P.No.10619/2024, the judgment debtor in Com.Ex No.35/2001 has challenged an order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which an application (I.A.No.IX) filed by her under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (hence referred to as 'CPC' for short) was rejected. She has also challenged an order dated 08.02.2024 by which, an application (I.A.No.X) filed by her under Order XXI Rule 59 read with Section 151 of CPC was rejected. She has also challenged an order dated 26.02.2024 issuing sale proclamation to sell the attached property.

2. In W.P.No.10789/2024 the petitioners have challenged an order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru issuing sale proclamation and for a direction to consider their application to be impleaded in Com.Ex.No.35/2021 and objections filed by them under Order XXI Rule 97(1) read with Section 151 of CPC for sale of the immovable property at an auction.

3. The petitioners in W.P.No.11100/2024 have challenged an order dated 08.02.2024 rejecting their applications (I.A.Nos.15 and 16) filed in Com.Ex.No.35/2021.

4. (i) The facts relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions are that the respondents in all these writ petitions had initiated arbitration proceedings in A.C.No.77/2016 against the petitioner in W.P.No.10619/2024 which culminated in an award dated 04.01.2017 wherein the petitioner in W.P.No.10619/2024 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- along with interest at 10% p.a. within a period of 30 days, failing which, interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was applicable. This award was sought to be enforced in Com.Ex.No.35/2021.

(ii) During the course of the proceedings, the property belonging to the judgment debtor was attached on 11.07.2022. Following this, proceedings were taken out for proclamation of sale by public auction and a sale notice was ordered to the judgment debtor for settling the terms of proclamation. The sale notice returned unserved with an endorsement 'door locked'. Though, intimation was left, the same was not claimed and it was learnt that the judgment debtor had left to Rajasthan. Thereafter on 30.11.2022, the sale notice was affixed on the outer door of the residence of the judgment debtor. The advocate for judgment debtor filed a memo before the executing Court on 30.11.2022 admitting that the decree holder had served the notice on him on 09.11.2022 and that he tried to communicate the same to judgment debtor over phone, but he could not establish contact. In view of the fact that sufficient notice was given to the judgment debtor about the sale notice, the Court held that the notice of the sale was sufficient and proceeded to auction the attached property in terms of the order dated 30.11.2022.

(iii) Thereafter the judgment debtor filed applications under Order XXI Rule 58 and Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC respectively to adjudicate his objections against bringing the attached property for sale. It was contended by the judgment debtor that (a) she was not served with the sale notice; (b) that the property attached was the subject matter of a revenue proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and also that a writ petition was pending consideration in that regard in W.P.No.2688/2015. (c) that the Regional Commissioner had initiated certain other proceedings. Therefore it was contended that the property was not available to be attached and that the Court was not entitled to put up the property for auctio