1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12 th DAY OF JUNE 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE W.P.No.55124/2013 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: Kumara s/o late Mariyapa Aged about 49 years R/o Kumbargeri street, Palahalli village – 571438, Belagola hobli, Srirangapatna taluk. ...PETITIONER (By Smt.Aparna Reddy, Adv. for Sri.V.Srinivas, Adv.) AND: 1. Smt.Chikkathayamma W/o Puttaswamygowda, Both are r/o Palahali village, Belagola hobli, Srirangapatna taluk-571438. 2. Ramalingu s/o Malaradundi Papanna since dead by his L.Rs. 2 2(a) Vijayalakshmi w/o late Ramalingu Aged about 35 years 2(b) Gagana s/o late Ramalingu Aged about 10 years Both are residents of Kallikoppalu Beedi Palahalli village-571438, Belagola village, Srirangapatna taluk-571438. ... RESPONDENTS This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records in M.A.No.20/10 and also in Execution No.69/07 & etc., This W.P. coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:- PC: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the court below on an application filed by the petitioner-Judgment debtor u/O 21 Rules 64 and 90 r/w Section 151 of CPC. By this 3 application, the petitioner sought to challenge sale proclamation, warrant and court auction of the suit schedule property. The operative portion of the impugned order, reads thus:- “ The application filed by the JDr under Order 21 Rule 64 & 90 read with Section 151 of CPC is hereby dismissed/disallowed. The court sale dated 29.01.2008 is confirmed and issue sale certificate in favour of the applicant Sri.Ramalingu s/o Malaradundi Papanna, resident of Palahalli village, Belagola hobli, Srirangapatna taluk in respect of the execution petition schedule property i.e., house bearing No.3E – II Block, on furnishing of necessary stamps. Orders accordingly”. 3. There is no dispute that after confirmation of sale dated 29.01.2008, sale certificate has also been issued in favour of respondent No.2 in 2010 itself. The 4 petitioner filed this writ petition after about four years from the date of the impugned order/issuance of sale certificate. The petitioner has not explained the delay. Moreover, the auction purchaser is in possession of the property since 2010. The petition suffers from delay and latches and on this ground alone, it deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE Srl. .