CR-19-1931 of 2026 IN THE HIG Rajinder Kaur Late Joginder Kau CORAM: HON’BL Argued by:- Mr. Ms. For t Mr. Cave DEEPAK GUPTA, The the Constitution dated 16.02.2026 Chandigarh, whe dated 19.01.2026 Chandigarh, in E Late Joginder Kau 2. The preliminary decr 06.01.2017 in fa declaring each o the widow, Jogin the Chandigarh 26 Page N: 1 of 20 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR CR No. 1931 of 2026(O Versus r Kaur & Ors. Reserved on: 26.02.202 Pronounced on: 05.03 Pronounced fully/ ope N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate wi Ms. Neha Lakhanpal, Advocate For the petitioner. Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate fo Caveator/ respondent No.3. *** TA, J. The supervisory jurisdiction of this C tion of India has been invoked by t 2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the l whereby the appeal preferred by t 2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by lear in Execution Case No. 363 of 2019 r Kaur & Ors.” was dismissed. The dispute pertains to House No. 2 decree for partition in respect of th in favour of the widow and five ch of them entitled to 1/6th share oginder Kaur, has since expired. Ow arh Estate Office Rules, which p HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (O&M) …Petitione …Respondent .2026 3.2026 operative part: fully PTA e with te for *** his Court under Articles 226 / 227 o by the petitioner to assail the orde the learned Additional District Judge by the petitioner against the orde learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 019 titled “Rajinder Kaur & Ors. vs o. 2781, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. A of the said property was passed on ive children of late Khushal Singh are therein. It is not in dispute tha . Owing to the applicable by-laws o h prohibit fragmentation of such ioner ents 27 of rder dge, rder sion), s. vs. rh. A d on ingh, that ws of such JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 property, partitio Executing Court p 3. In t emerged as the h decree-holders s as Arvinder Sing stipulated period 4. A su received. Therea Court fixed a fr conducted accor the highest bidde 5. On judgment-debtor Court raising o conducted. It w transparent and that sale value w 6. Subs (Annexure P-4), detailed objectio grounds urged w price; that mand with Order XXI R that no base pri vitiated by collus the legal repres dismissed by the Aggrieved thereo came to be dism order dated 16.0 26 Page N: 2 of 20 rtition by metes and bounds was urt proceeded to effect partition by In the first auction conducted o the highest bidder with an offer of rs submitted the second highest b Singh failed to deposit the balanc riod, the bid was cancelled. A subsequent auction was held on ereafter, vide order dated 26.08.202 a fresh schedule for auction on ccordingly, in which, respondent N idder with an offer of ₹ 2,10,00,000 On the same day (15.10.2025), btors, moved an application (Anne g objections to the manner in It was alleged that the sale proc and had been conducted in undue e was much lesser than the market Subsequently, on 23.10.2025, the 4), under Order XXI Rule 90 re ctions and seeking setting aside o ed were that the property had bee andatory compliance with the prov XI Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil Pr price had been fixed prior to the ollusion amongst bidders, who were presentatives of a judgment-deb the Executing Court vide order da ereof, the petitioner preferred an a ismissed by the learned Additional 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-7). as not feasible. Consequently, the n by way of auction. d on 06.01.2025, Arvinder Singh r of ₹2,49,50,000/-, while one of the st bid of ₹ 2,49,00,000/-. However lance sale consideration within the d on 20.04.2025, but no bids wer .2025 (Annexure P-2), the Executin on 15.10.2025. The auction wa nt No.3 Pankaj Bansal was declared ,000/-. 5), some of Decree-Holders and Annexure P-3) before the Executin in which the auction had been proceedings were neither fair no due haste. It was further contended rket price. the petitioner filed an application 0 read with Section 151 CPC with e of the auction sale. The principa been sold at a grossly inadequate provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 read il Procedure had not been effected the auction; and that the sale wa were allegedly accompanying one o debtor. The said application wa r dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) an appeal (Annexure P-6), which too onal District Judge, Chandigarh, vide , the Singh f the ever, the were uting was lared and uting been nor nded ation with cipal uate read cted; was ne of was 5). h too , vide JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 7. It is P-5 and P-7 res various grounds, judgment. 8. Upo motion was issue caveat, entered a 9. This has carefully peru 10. Befo statutory framew 11. Orde procedure for co public auction. It “66. Proclam (1) Where a decree, the the languag (2) Such pro the judgme fairly and ac (a) th suffic (b) th prope payin (c) an (d) th 26 Page N: 3 of 20 It is these two orders dated 19.01.2 respectively, which have been im nds, which shall be adverted to Upon hearing learned Senior Coun issued. Respondent No.3, the auctio ed appearance and contested the p This Court has heard learned couns perused the record. Before adverting to the factual mat mework governing sales by court au Order XXI Rule 66 of the Civil r conducting of sale, wherever a p n. It reads as under: oclamation of sales by public auction. ere any property is ordered to be sold , the Court shall cause a proclamation guage of such Court. h proclamation shall be drawn up afte gment-debtor and shall state the time nd accurately as possible— ) the property to be sold 1 [or, wher sufficient to satisfy the decree, such par (b) the revenue assessed upon the esta property to be sold is an interest in paying revenue to the Government; (c) any incumbrance to which the prope (d) the amount for the recovery of whic 01.2026 and 16.02.2026—Annexure n impugned before this Court on to in the subsequent part of thi ounsel for the petitioner, notice o uction purchaser, who had lodged he petition. ounsel for the parties at length and matrix, it is necessary to notice th t auction. ivil Procedure Code provides the a property is ordered to be sold b tion.— sold by public auction in execution of a tion of the intended sale to be made in after notice to the decree-holder and time and place of sale, and specify as where a part of the property would be h part]; estate or past of the estate, where the t in an estate or in part of an estate roperty is liable; which the sale is ordered; and xures t on this ce of ed a and e the the ld by of a de in r and ify as ld be e the state JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 (e) e to kn Provi proclamatio under rule judgment- Provi the Court to the propert either or bo (3) Every ap by a statem the signing known to o matters req (4) For the proclamatio summon an to produce a 12. It m Rule (2) by way o “Provided th estimate of estimate, if 13. By w and Sub-Rule (3) substituted Sub is not being repro 14. Thus Court shall caus notice to the d 26 Page N: 4 of 20 (e) every other thing which the Court to know in order to judge of the nature Provided that where notice of the d ation has been given to the judgme rule 54, it shall not be necessary to g -debtor unless the Court otherwise d Provided further that nothing in this ru rt to enter in the proclamation of sal perty, but the proclamation shall inclu r both of the Parties. ry application for an order for sale und atement signed and verified in the m ning and verification of pleadings an to or can be ascertained by the pe s required by sub-rule (2) to be specified r the purpose of ascertaining the ation, the Court may summon any pe n and may examine him in respect to uce any document in his possession or It may be noted that a proviso has b ay of amendment of this Court, whi ed that it shall not be necessary for the te of the value of the property; bu te, if any, given by either or both of the By way of the same amendment, a e (3) and (4) have been re-numbe ub-Rule (3) pertains to the movabl eproduced, as it is not relevant for t Thus, as per the pre conditions un ause a proclamation of the inten e decree-holder and judgment- ourt considers material for a purchase ture and value of the property: he date for settling the terms of the dgment-debtor by means of an order to give notice under this rule to the ise directs: his rule shall be construed as requiring f sale its own estimate of the value o include the estimate, if any, given, by e under this rule shall be accompanied e manner hereinbefore prescribed fo s and containing, so far as they are e person making the verification, the cified in the proclamation. the matters to be specified in the ny person whom it thinks necessary to ct to any such matters and require him n or power relating thereto.” has been added to Clause [e] of Sub which reads as under:- r the for the Court itself to give its own ; but proclamation shall include the f the parties” t, a new Sub-Rule (3) was inserted mbered as Sub-Rule (4) and (5). A vable property, therefore, the same for the purpose of present case. s under Order 21, Rule 66 CPC, th tended sale to be drawn up afte -debtor. The proclamation mus haser f the order o the iring ue of n, by anied d for y are , the the ry to e him Sub- own the rted; ). As same , the after must JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 specify - (i) the ti property to be s every other mat value of the pro proclamation of estimate is given proclamation. 15. Orde reads as under: “67. Mode o published, a (2) Where t Official Gaz publication (3) Where p shall not be proper noti given.” 16. As th made and publis Sub-Rule (2), the which reads as u “54. Attach (1) Where th prohibiting any way, an [(1A) The o specified da proclamatio 26 Page N: 5 of 20 he time and place of sale, (ii) as fairl be sold, (iii) encumbrances, (iv) th material fact necessary for a purc property. Generally, the court is of sale its own estimate of the given by either of the party, then Order 21 Rule 67 CPC provides the m er: ode of making proclamation.—(1) Eve ed, as nearly as may be, in the manner ere the Court so directs, such proclama Gazette or in a local newspaper, o tion shall be deemed to be costs of the ere property is divided into lots for the p ot be necessary to make a separate notice of the sale cannot, in the op As the above said provision makes it blished as nearly as may be in the , therefore, it is necessary to refer as under: tachment of immovable property.— ere the property is immovable, the atta ting the judgment-debtor from transfe y, and all persons from taking any bene he order shall also require the judgm d date to take notice of the date to be ation of sale.] fairly and accurately as possible, th ) the amount for recovery, and (v purchaser to judge the nature and t is not required to mention in the the value of the property, but i hen same is to be included in the the mode of making proclamation. I ) Every proclamation shall be made and nner prescribed by rule 54, sub-rule (2). lamation shall also be published in the er, or in both, and the costs of such f the sale. the purpose of being sold separately, i rate proclamation for each lot, unless e opinion of the Court, otherwise be es it clear that proclamation is to be the manner prescribed by Rule 54 efer to said Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 54 — attachment shall be made by an orde ansferring or charging the property in benefit from such transfer of charge. udgment-debtor to attend Court on a to be fixed for settling the terms of the , the d (v) and the ut if the on. It e and e (2). n the such ely, it nless se be to be e 54, e 54, order rty in ge. on a f the JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 (2) The orde by beat of affixed on a part of the the Governm situate and, the Gram Pa 17. Thus requires proclam and court house. Official Gazette o 18. In SCC 131, Hon’ble Order XXI Rule proceedings. The must contain all properly assess t for the Court to ordinarily includ judgment-debtor Rule 66(2)(e) obl prospective bidd The Supreme Co ipse dixit of one particulars affec publication unde that the property 19. Simi Anr. (1987) 4 SCC “……….the c are proper 26 Page N: 6 of 20 order shall be proclaimed at some pla t of drum or other customary mode, on a conspicuous part of the proper the Court-house, and also, where the vernment, in the office of the Collector and, where the property is land situat m Panchayat, if any, having jurisdiction Thus, Rule 67 prescribes the mode clamation by customary mode and use. Court may also direct such pro tte or in a local newspaper, or in bot In Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Ana n’ble Supreme Court emphasized t ule 66 CPC is a fundamental and The Court held that the proclamati all material particulars that would ess the nature and value of the pro t to state its own valuation of the p clude the valuation, if any, given btor, unless such valuation appears ) obligates disclosure of essential fa bidders are neither misled nor det Court further held that the Court one party regarding valuation, and ffecting value are fairly and acc der Rules 66 and 67 is to secure erty fetches a fair price. Similarly, in M/s Shalimar Cinema v SCC 717, it was held as under : the court has a duty to see that the r perly complied with. In the words of e place on or adjacent to such property ode, and a copy of the order shall be roperty and then upon, a conspicuous the property is land paying revenue to ector of the district in which the land is ituate in a village, also in the office o iction over that village.” ode of publication, and Rule 54 (2 and affixation at the property sit proclamation to be published in the both. Anand & Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 ed that proclamation of sale unde and mandatory step in execution ation must be drawn with care and ould enable intending purchasers to property. While it is not obligator he property, the proclamation mus iven by the decree-holder and th ears fanciful. The Court clarified tha al facts bearing on valuation so tha deterred from offering a fair price urt cannot mechanically accept the and must ensure that the materia accurately stated. The object o ure competitive bidding and ensure ma vs Bhasin Film Corporation And he requirements of Order XXI Rule 6 s of the Judicial Committee, "In sale perty ll be cuous ue to nd is ice of 4 (2) site n the 94) 1 nder ution and rs to atory must the that that rice. t the terial ct of sure And le 66 sales JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 under the d the extrem and enter cases of sal the sale pro or its office an indiffere 20. Thus judicial sales and 21. Once tion of a decree, ting aside such sa est in the proper decretal amount money, subject t 22. In th nor any of the o available under O 23. The ables an applicat fraud in publishin “90. Applica (1) Where a decree-hold rateable dis apply to the or fraud in p (2) No sale or conducti applicant ha 26 Page N: 7 of 20 he direction of the court, it is incumbe reme." Though it may not be necessar ter it in the sale proclamation in eve f sale of valuable property that the cou e proclamation. We think it necessary fficers should be such as to give rise fferent or casual way.” Thus, it was emphasized that the and avoid casualness in compliance Once the sale of immovable proper ree, the Code of Civil Procedure pr ch sale. Under Order XXI Rule 89 CP perty sold may apply to have the sa ount together with the prescribe ct to fulfilment of the statutory con In the present case, it is not in dis he other judgment-debtors or decr er Order XXI Rule 89 CPC. The petitioner, instead, invoked Or lication to set aside a sale on the g ishing or conducting it. The same re plication to set aside sale on ground o ere any immovable property has been holder, or the purchaser, or any oth le distribution of assets, or whose inter o the Court to set aside the sale on th d in publishing or conducting it. sale shall be set aside on the ground o ucting it unless, upon the facts prov nt has sustained substantial injury by r mbent on the court to be scrupulous i ssary for the court to make a valuatio every case, it is desirable at least i e court make its valuable and enter it i sary to add that no action of the cour rise to the criticism that it was done i the Court must be scrupulous in nce with statutory requirements. perty has been conducted in exec e provides distinct remedies for se 9 CPC, any person claiming an inte he sale set aside upon deposit of the ribed percentage of the purchase conditions contained therein. dispute that neither the petitione decree-holders invoked the remed d Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, which e he ground of material irregularity o e reads as under:- und of irregularity or fraud.— been sold in execution of a decree, the y other person entitled to share in a interests are affected by the sale, may n the ground of a material irregularity nd of irregularity or fraud in publishing proved, the Court is satisfied that the by reason of such irregularity or fraud. us in ation st in r it in court ne in us in xecu- r set- nter- f the hase ioner edy h en- ity or , the in a , may larity shing t the raud. JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 (3) No appl any ground the proclam Explanation sold shall no 24. It m added a Proviso t “Provided fu applicant co 25. As e the decree-holde the sale to challe abundantly clear or fraud unless substantial injury tion by providing ground which the proclamation of of, or defect in, a viso to Rule 90 in no such sale sha put forward befo that objections, cannot be permit 26. A co tion clear. A sale fraud in publishi therefrom. Furth available to the a 26 Page N: 8 of 20 application to set aside a sale under t und which the applicant could have ta clamation of sale was drawn up. ation.—The mere absence of, or defe all not, by itself, be a ground for setting It may be noted that by way of an a iso to above Rule 90, which reads a ed further that no such sale shall be s nt could have put forward before the sa As evident on bare perusal of abov older, the purchaser, or any person hallenge the same on such grounds lear that no sale shall be set aside m ess the Court is further satisfied t njury by reason thereof. Sub-rule ( iding that no application under Rule h the applicant could have taken on of sale was drawn up. The Explana in, attachment is not by itself a gro 90 inserted by this High Court by wa shall be set aside on any ground, before the sale was conducted. This ns, which could and ought to hav rmitted to be agitated belatedly aft A conjoint reading of Rule 90 and t sale can be set aside only upon pr hing or conducting the sale, and urther, the Court must examine w he applicant prior to settlement of der this rule shall be entertained upon e taken on or before the date on which defect in, attachment of the property tting aside a sale under this rule.” an amendment, this High Court also ds as under:- be set aside on any ground which the the sale was conducted” above provision, Rule 90(1) permit son, whose interests are affected b nds. However, sub-rule (2) makes i ide merely upon proof of irregularit ed that the applicant has sustained le (3) imposes an additional limit Rule 90 shall be entertained on an n on or before the date on which th lanation clarifies that mere absence ground for setting aside a sale. Pr y way of amendment stipulates tha nd, which the applicant could have This proviso reinforces the principle have been raised prior to the sal y after the sale has been completed. nd the proviso makes the legal pos n proof of (i) material irregularity o and (ii) substantial injury resultin e whether the grounds urged wer t of the proclamation or prior to th upon hich perty t also h the rmits ed by kes it larity ined mita- any h the ence . Pro- that have ciple sale ted. posi- ity or lting were o the JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 conduct of the s were not so raise 27. Thus open concluded s not pursued at t judicial sales wit substantial injury 28. Havi consider the cont 29. As n public sale, was (Annexure P-2). “Pow received ba of the co- detailed ord Let f auction as p (i) Court No (ii) Munadi (iii) Auction and Report This preference sharers/co Chandigarh required pr is to procee 26 Page N: 9 of 20 he sale itself. If such grounds cou raised, the application under Rule 90 Thus, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC does n ed sales on grounds, which were av at the appropriate stage. The prov with protection against genuine i jury. Having noticed the legal position contentions raised by both the side As noted earlier that schedule for a was fixed by the Executing Cour 2). This order reads as under:- “Power of attorney on behalf of JD NO d back with the report of unexecuted -sharers or no-owners in the auctio d order dated 13.08.2025 was passed. Let fresh warrant of sale be issued and as per the following schedule: t Notice on 10.09.2025 adi on 26.09.2025 tion on 15.10.2025 port on 31.10.2025 This Court also passed order dated nce in participating in sale procee /co-owners of the property in qu garh and if the co-sharers/co-owners d property value then it may be open oceed for auctioning the suit property. could have been raised earlier bu le 90 would not be maintainable. es not provide a carte blanche to r re available before the sale but wer rovision seeks to balance finality o ine irregularity or fraud resulting in ion as above, time is now ripe to sides. or auction of the property by way o ourt vide order dated 26.08.2025 D NO.3 filed. Since, the warrant of sal ted due to the non-participating of an ction proceedings and in this regard, sed. and proper procedure be followed fo ated 22.04.2025 as per which firs oceedings will be given to the co question i.e. # 2781 Sector 22(c ners failed to make the bid as per th pen to the public by the Civil Nazir wh erty. r but o re- were ity of ng in e to ay of 2025 f sale f any rd, a d for first co- 22(c) r the who JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 The bidder Arvi in view of auction pro directed to base price bidder befo 30. Purs was drawn on 28 31. Afte the Court auction 11) to the court, “Sir, In th property i.e the Court h the Court B Auction Pr Court. At th present. Al the presenc That 15.10.2025 was Rs.2,00 the spot. As had to subm before part that legal h and JD No.3 not bid for 26 Page N: 10 of 20 The Civil Nazir is hereby directed to e Arvinder Singh is de-barred from parti of non-depositing of required amou proceedings which was held on 20.0 d to mentioned this fact in notice tha rice will be deposited in the shape of before participating in the auction pro Pursuant to the aforesaid order, th n 28.08.2025 and then the sale was After conducting the sale on 15.10 ctioneer) conducted the sale and fu urt, which reads as under:- In this case, warrant of sale was rece ty i.e. House No.2781, Sector 22-C, Cha t house on 10.09.2025 and thereaf rt Bailiff on 26.09.2025. After comple Proceedings took place on 15.10.2 At the spot, Judgment Debtor and pe t. All the persons present at the spot sence sheet. That in pursuance of the warrant o 025. The reserve price of the House .2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores on t. As per the court directions, before p submit 10% amount of the initial base participating in the auction proceedin gal heirs of JD No.02 namely Sh. Arvin No.3 namely Sh. Ranjit Singh were als for the sale auction, their presence to ensure to mentioned the fact tha articipating in the auction proceeding mount i.e. 25 per cent amount in th 20.01.2025. The Civil Nazar is furthe that 10 per cent amount of the initia e of demand draft by the participatin proceedings.” r, the proclamation (Annexure P-10) was conducted on 15.10.2025. 5.10.2025, Civil Nazir (appointed a d furnished his report (Annexure P received on 30.08.2025 for auction o , Chandigarh. The notice was affixed o reafter, proclamation was effected b pleting the proclamation process, th 10.2025 as per the directions of th person from the general public wer spot marked their presence by signin nt of Auction, Auction was held o use No. 2781, Sector 22-C, Chandigar s only). Three bidders were present a re participating in the bid, each bidde ase price in the shape of demand draf edings. It is pertinent to mention her Arvinder Singh and Sh. Davinder Sing e also present at the spot but they di nce has been marked in the presenc that dings n the rther initial ating 10) d as re P- on of d on d by s, the f the were gning d on igarh nt at idder draft here Singh y did ence JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 sheet. Even Court. Acco Twenty Lak Mahajan an and the hig House No.1 and the Hi Only). Ther Mahajan an per the ter highest bid demand d 14.10.2025 15.10.2025 Thousand o Two Crores No.2781, Se That was signed prepared b original dra All amounting amount i.e Rs.52,5,0,0 sheet, orig submitted h 32. Apar proclamation, or aside an auction 26 Page N: 11 of 20 Even they were not having any deman Accordingly three demand drafts amo Lakhs Only) each from persons nam n and Sh. Gaurav Jain were received. B highest bidder (Sh. Pankaj Bansal S/ No.1065, Sector 08-C, Chandigarh) wa e Highest Bid was of Rs.2,10,00,000 Thereafter, demand drafts submitte n and Sh. Gaurav Jain were returned terms and conditions of sale, 25% of bidder i.e. Sh. Pankaj Bansal. In a d draft amounting to Rs.20,00,000 025, remaining amount i.e. Rs.32,50 025 totaling to Rs. 52,50,000/- (Ru nd only) i.e. 25% of the highest bid v ores Ten Lakhs Only) has been submitt 1, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. That auction sheet was prepared by t ned by all the bidders present at t ed by the undersigned. The undersig raft from the auction purchaser in th All the relevant papers including ting to Rs.20,00,000/- vide DD No. 13 t i.e. Rs.32,50,000/- vide DD No. 13 ,0,000/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs a original presence sheet of the part ted herewith.” Apart from fraud, material ir , or in conducting the sale constitut tion sale under Order XXI Rule 90 mand draft as ordered by the Hon’bl amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupee namely Sh. Pankaj Bansal, Sh. Vika ed. Bidders came forward and gave bi al S/o of Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal) R/ ) was the successful bidder at the spo ,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Ten Lakh itted by persons namely Sh. Vika ned to them against proper receipt. A % of the highest bid was to be paid b In addition to the already submitte ,000/- vide DD No. 013808 date 2,50,000/- vide DD No. 013811 date (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs and Fift bid value i.e. Rs.2,10,00,000/- (Rupee mitted by him for the auction of Hous by the undersigned at the spot whic at the spot. Presence sheet was als ersigned is submitting the above sai in the Hon’ble Court. ng the two original demand draft o. 13808 dated 14.10.2025, remainin . 13811 dated 15.10.2025 totaling t s and Fifty Thousand Only), auctio parties and the warrants of sale ar l irregularity in publishing the titutes a statutory ground for settin e 90 CPC. The expression “materia n’ble pees Vikas e bid l) R/o spot Lakhs Vikas t. As id by itted ated ated Fifth pees ouse hich also said rafts ining g to ction are the tting terial JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 irregularity” has irregularity, whic affect the fairnes 33. In t 26.08.2025, dire (proclamation) o the report of t reproduced abov Bailiff on 26.09.2 was carried out. CPC. Significantly report. 34. Upo auction purchase Bailiff’s report to affixation on the munadi and affix 09.10.2025. This proclamation on 35. Thus reporting. More effective proclam merely six days p 36. This mandated muna of proclamation requirement of under the applica to inform the gen to provide suffic 26 Page N: 12 of 20 has consistently been interpreted by which goes to the root of the proc rness of the sale. In the present case, the Execu directed issuance of Court no n) on 26.09.2025 and conduct of a of the Court auctioneer dated 1 above, merely states that proclama 09.2025, without disclosing the man ut. There is nothing to show the co antly, the Bailiff’s report was not Upon a specific query raised dur ser produced, by way of affidavit rt to establish compliance. A perusa the Court house and notice boar affixation at the site of the prope This materially contradicts the Civ on 26.09.2025 and affixation on 10 Thus, the record discloses inte ore importantly, even accepting th clamation at the property site oc ys prior to the auction held on 15.1 This is in patent deviation from the unadi on 26.09.2025. The prescrib tion and the date of auction is of reasonable gap, which is ordin plicable High Court Rules, is intende general public and intending purch ufficient time for preparation an d by the Supreme Court to mean an procedure and has the potential to ecuting Court, vide order dated notice on 10.09.2025, munad of auction on 15.10.2025. However d 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-11), lamation was effected by the Cour manner in which such proclamation e compliance of Order 21 Rule 54 (2 not appended to the auctioneer’ during hearing, respondent No.3 avit dated 26.02.2026, a copy of the rusal thereof, however, reveals tha board is shown on 09.10.2025. The operty was also conducted only on Civil Nazir’s report, which record n 10.09.2025. internal inconsistency in officia g the Bailiff’s report at face value occurred only on 09.10.2025 i.e. 15.10.2025. the order dated 26.08.2025, which cribed interval between publication is not an empty formality. Th rdinarily not less than fifteen day ended to ensure adequate publicity urchasers of the sale conditions, and and participation. The underlyin an an ial to ated nadi ever, ), as ourt ation 4 (2) eer’s o.3– f the that . The ly on cords fficial alue, i.e., hich ation The days licity, , and lying JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 object is to secu the best possible site and conduc fairness of the sa 37. Hon Anand(supra), proclamation un proceedings, and intending bidder that absence of p Similarly, in Gajad emphasized that accurately state judgment. The o competitive bidd 38. In Ors., 1974 AIR ( forced sale and fetches the best safeguard agains 39. Agai SCC 717, it was direction of the extreme.” Any ca 66 is impermissib 40. The and auction is pr property, arrang of this interval t defeats the very 26 Page N: 13 of 20 secure maximum competitive biddi sible price. Curtailment of the interv duct of auction defeats that ob e sale process. Hon’ble Supreme Court in De categorically held that set under Order XXI Rule 66 are fu and that details must be ascertain ders are not misled and fair price of proper notice affects the very ju Gajadhar Prasad v. Babu Bhakta Ra that material particulars affecting tated so that prospective purch he object of due publication unde bidding. In M/s Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v IR (SC) 1331, Hon’ble Supreme Cour nd the Court must exercise vigilan est possible price. The authority co ainst circumstances, which may resu Again, in M/s Shalimar Cinema v. Bh was observed by Hon’ble Supreme the Court, it is incumbent upon the y casual or indifferent approach to issible. The purpose of ensuring a reasonab is precisely to allow intending bidd ange finances, and participate in t val to a mere six days undermine ry object of judicial sale. idding so that the property fetche terval between proclamation at th object and materially affects th Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L settlement and publication o re fundamental steps in execution tained and noted with care, so tha rice is secured. It was further held ry jurisdiction of the executing court a Ratan, (1973) 2 SCC 629, the Cour cting valuation must be fairly and urchasers may form an informed nder Rules 66 and 67 is to secur td. v. M/s Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. Court observed that a court sale is gilance to ensure that the propert ty conducting the sale must activel result in inadequate realization. v. Bhasin Film Corporation, (1987) 4 eme Court that in sales under th the Court to be “scrupulous in the h to compliance with Order XXI Rul onable interval between publication bidders adequate time to assess th in the bidding process. Curtailmen ines competitive participation and tches t the the N.L. of ution that held ourt. ourt and rmed cure & e is a perty tively 87) 4 r the n the Rule tion s the ment and JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 41. The formalities but a of price. Deviati participation, con 42. In th coupled with inc cannot be treate transparency of t meaning of Orde 43. Mat fixation of the re order dated 26.0 price” be deposi condition preced order nor the pr base price” was. intending particip A direction to d legally unsustain deposit pre-supp base price. In the 44. The 15.10.2025 (Anne that the reserve fixing such rese reference, or ma arrived at. The r 26.08.2025 or in 45. In Na it was held Hon’b 26 Page N: 14 of 20 The procedural safeguards govern ut are designed to ensure transpar viation from such safeguards, part , constitutes material irregularity. In the present case, the deviation inconsistent official reports and th eated as a minor procedural lapse of the sale process. The irregularity rder XXI Rule 90 CPC. Matter does not rest here. A m e reserve or base price. It is of co 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) directe posited in the form of a demand ecedent to participation in the auc e proclamation of sale (Annexure P was. In the absence of such disclo rticipant to ascertain the quantum o to deposit 10% of an undisclosed tainable, and incapable of uniform supposes prior judicial determinati the present case, that foundationa The matter assumes greater serious Annexure P-11) submitted by the C rve price of the property was ₹2 c reserve price. There is no reason r material on record explaining ho he reserve price does not find me r in the proclamation of sale. Navalkha & Sons vs. Sri Ramany on’ble Supreme Court as under : verning court sales are not empt sparency, fairness and maximization particularly where it affects publi ion from the Court’s own schedule d the truncated publication period lapse. It strikes at the fairness and larity is therefore material within th A more serious infirmity concern f considerable significance that the ected that 10% of the “initial base nd draft by intending bidders as auction. However, neither the said ure P-10) disclosed what the “initia isclosure, it was impossible for an um of 10% required to be deposited sed base price is inherently vague rm compliance. The requirement o ination and public disclosure of th ional step was wholly absent. riousness in light of the report dated he Civil Nazir, wherein it is recorded ₹2 crores. There is no judicial orde soning, valuation report, prior bid g how the figure of ₹2 crores wa mention either in the order dated anya Das & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 2037 mpty ation ublic dule, riod, and n the cerns t the base as a said nitial r any sited. ague, nt of f the ated rded rder r bid was ated 2037, JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 “The princi Where the confirmatio vested righ His offer. T against the consequenc it is the dut of the prop about the a a proper ex to be sold b itself that offered……… Court being it will be discretion w the auction the auction irregularity 46. Fixat judicial function. fairness of the sa sales require vigi cannot be abdic operates as a saf itself that the pri of reserve price i 47. The price, was under declare such base Nazir amounts to 26 Page N: 15 of 20 rinciples which should govern confirm the acceptance of the offer by t ation of the Court the offeror does right in the property so that he may d er. The condition of confirmation by the property being sold at inadequ uence of any irregularity or fraud in th duty of the Court to satisfy itself that property the price offered is reason he adequacy of the price the act of co r exercise of judicial discretion. ………… ld by private contract or otherwise i hat the price fixed ‘is the best ……………….it was pointed out that the eing a safeguard against the property be not only proper but necessary ion which it undoubtedly has of accep tion held in pursuance of its orders, s ction, is an adequate price even t rity or fraud.” Fixation of reserve price is not a m ion. It directly impacts competitive e sale process. Hon’ble Supreme Co vigilant supervision and that essen bdicated or delegated to ministe a safeguard against inadequacy of p price offered is reasonable. Where ice itself is absent, judicial oversight The Executing Court, having manda der a corresponding obligation to j base price. Leaving such determina ts to abdication of judicial responsib firmation of sales are well-established by the Commissioners is subject t oes not by mere acceptance get an ay demand automatic confirmation o by the Court operates as a safeguar dequate price whether or not it is in the conduct of the sale. In every cas that having regard to the market valu sonable. Unless the Court is satisfie f confirmation of the sale would not b ………Where the property is authorise ise it is the duty of the Court to satisf est that could be expected to b t the condition of confirmation by th erty being sold at an inadequate price ary that the Court in exercising th ccepting or refusing the highest bid a rs, should see that the price fetched a n though there is no suggestion o a ministerial act and rather, it is itive bidding, adequacy of price and e Court has clearly held that judicia ssential decisions affecting valuation isterial staff. Confirmation of sal of price and the Court must satisf here the foundational determination ight stands diluted. andated deposit of 10% of the base to judicially determine and publicl ination to the discretion of the Civ nsibility. shed. ct to t any n of. uard is a case value isfied ot be rised atisfy o be y the price, the id at ed at n of t is a and dicial ation sale atisfy ation base blicly Civil JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 48. Equa participated in th lakhs i.e., precis Nazir. The rese participating bidd to 10% of the r brushed aside as 49. Still demand draft of one day prior to ₹2,10,00,000/- ₹32,50,000/- so amount. In ordin amount is know the required figu 50. Thou findings of perso observe that jud their transparenc disclosed, yet corresponding t compromised. Th undermines the i 51. The price, (ii) non-di judicial function with drafts precis the entire exercis 52. It is Court is not b 26 Page N: 16 of 20 Equally troubling is the circumst in the auction and each of them arr ecisely 10% of ₹2 crores, the rese reserve price was not disclosed bidders were prepared with identi he reserve price ultimately record e as immaterial. Still further, the highest bidder, re t of ₹20 lakhs dated 14.10.2025, as r to the auction. Immediately upon on 15.10.2025, he produced a so as to complete the statutory rdinary course, where neither the own in advance, preparation of d figures is difficult to explain. Though this Court refrains from a ersonal misconduct without direct judicial sales must not only be fa rency. When the reserve price is ne et participating bidders appear g to that undisclosed figure, t d. The appearance of prior knowle the integrity of the auction. The cumulative effect of (i) absenc disclosure of base price in pro tion to ministerial staff, and (iv) un recisely matching the subsequently ercise procedurally suspect and lega is true that under the proviso to t bound to state its own valu mstance that only three bidder arrived with a demand draft of ₹20 reserve price later recorded by the sed in the proclamation. Yet a entical drafts corresponding exactl orded. This coincidence cannot be r, respondent No.3, had obtained , as mentioned in Nazir’s report, i.e. pon being declared highest bidder a ed an additional demand draft o ory requirement of 25% of the bid the base price nor the eventual bid of drafts in precise conformity with m attributing motives or recordin rect evidence but it is necessary to fair but must inspire confidence in is neither judicially fixed nor publicl ear prepared with exact draft e, the process stands objectivel wledge regarding reserve structure sence of judicial fixation of reserv proclamation, (iii) delegation of v) uniform preparedness of bidder ntly recorded reserve price, render legally indefensible. o to Order XXI Rule 66 (2) CPC, th valuation of the property in the ders ₹20 y the t all actly t be ed a , i.e., er at ft of e bid l bid with rding ry to ce in blicly rafts ively cture serve of a ders ders , the the JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 proclamation. H disclosure of a ba base price a p quantified base becomes indispe the Nazir or any o 53. The procedure and safeguards were foundation of fai 54. Und material irregula injury is shown. T absence of judic proclamation; an irregularities in th 55. As r the property fet ₹2,10,00,000/-, a material suggest When procedura and the result is prejudice stands 56. It is appellate. This C merely because procedural safeg satisfied, and wh are not strictly 26 Page N: 17 of 20 . However, that principle canno a base price, when the Court itself h a pre-condition for participation. ase value, judicial determination ispensable. Such determination can any other ministerial officer. The sanctity of judicial sale res nd transparent judicial supervisio were not observed. The process f fairness expected in court-conduct Under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, a sa gularity or fraud in publishing or co n. The irregularities noted herein i. judicial fixation of reserve price; n ; and deviation from the court’s ow in the conduct of sale. As regards substantial injury, it is n fetched a bid of ₹2,49,50,000/-. I , a reduction of approximately ₹3 gests decline in property market dural lapses have the potential to re lt is a significantly lower price com nds established. Substantial injury, t It is true that jurisdiction under Ar his Court does not reappreciate e ause another view is possible. afeguards are ignored, where juris where statutory requirements go ctly adhered to, supervisory corre nnot be invoked to justify non self has made deposit of 10% of such ion. Once deposit is linked to tion and disclosure of that valu cannot be left to the discretion o rests upon strict adherence to vision. In the present case, those cess adopted strikes at the ver ducted auctions. a sale may be set aside on proof o r conducting it, provided substantia in i.e., truncated publication period ce; non-disclosure of base price in ’s own schedule, constitute materia is noteworthy that in January 2025 . In October 2025, it was sold fo ₹39 lakhs within nine months. No ket in a prime Chandigarh sector to restrict competitive participation compared to a recent prior auction ry, therefore, is made out. r Article 227 is supervisory and no te evidence or substitute its view ble. However, where mandator jurisdictional pre-conditions are no s governing deprivation of propert orrection becomes necessary. Th non- such to a value on of e to hose very of of ntial riod; ce in terial 025, d for s. No ctor. tion, tion, not view atory e not perty The JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 failure to judicia appreciation but 57. Both these foundation the binding prin sales. 58. Acco 16.02.2026 (Anne and all consequ quashed. 59. In v impugned sale, conducting a fres 60. The and strict compli (i) The Executing debtors and oth proclamation of s (ii) Before settli an appropriate v consideration th location of the pr the basis of su determine and fi (iii) The proclama  the reserve  the amoun 26 Page N: 18 of 20 dicially settle proclamation and but a jurisdictional infirmity. Both the Executing Court and the A tional defects. The approach adopt principles laid down by Hon’ble S Accordingly, the orders dated 1 Annexure P-7) are set aside. The au equential proceedings including co In view of the foregoing discussio ale, the matter is remitted to th fresh auction in accordance with la The following directions are issued pliance with statutory requiremen ting Court shall issue fresh notice t other concerned stakeholders an of sale strictly in conformity with O ettling the terms of proclamation, te valuation report from an approve n the prevailing circle rates, mun e property, and the bids received in f such material, the Court shall, d fix an appropriate reserve price. lamation of sale shall expressly discl erve price so fixed, ount required to be deposited for p reserve price is not an error o he Appellate Court failed to addres dopted was mechanical, overlookin le Supreme Court governing cour d 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) and e auction conducted on 15.10.2025 g confirmation of sale, are hereb ssion and the setting aside of th o the learned Executing Court fo h law. ued to ensure transparency, fairnes ments: ice to all decree-holders, judgment s and thereafter, draw up a fresh ith Order XXI Rule 66 CPC. on, the Executing Court shall obtain roved valuer and may also take into municipal assessment, nature and ed in earlier auction proceedings. On all, by a reasoned judicial order e. disclose: for participation, or of dress oking court and 2025 reby f the t for rness ent- fresh btain into and s. On rder, JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026  the terms a  and all ma enable inte (iv) Publication and Rule 67 CPC proved by prope fifteen clear days date of auction. (v) In addition to Rules 54 and 67 auction notice in circulation in th participation of in expenses for suc shall deposit the time stipulated b execution expens be apportioned accordance with (vi) The reserve the Court Auctio shall remain stric (vii) Confirmatio records its indep compliance with (viii) The amount No.3 pursuant t forthwith, along 26 Page N: 19 of 20 ms and conditions of sale, l material particulars affecting the va intending purchasers to make an in ion of proclamation shall strictly co CPC. Affixation at the property site roper report. A reasonable and a days, shall intervene between publ on. n to the statutory modes of publica 67 CPC, the Executing Court shal ce in at least one widely circulated the concerned area, so as to en of intending purchasers, and secure such newspaper publication shall b the requisite amount as directed b ed by it. However, such expenditur penses and shall, at the stage of fin ned proportionately amongst al ith their respective shares. rve price shall not, under any circu ctioneer or any ministerial officer. T strictly confined to execution of jud ation of sale, if any, shall be grante dependent judicial satisfaction rega ith all statutory requirements. ount equivalent to 25% of the bid a nt to the auction dated 15.10.20 ong with any amount lying deposi he valuation of the property, so as to an informed decision. ly comply with Order XXI Rule 54(2 site and Court house shall be dul d adequate interval, not less than publication of proclamation and the blication prescribed under Order XX shall also ensure publication of the lated newspaper having substantia o ensure wider publicity, maximize cure competitive bidding. The initia all be borne by the petitioner, who ed by the Executing Court within th iture shall be treated as part of th f final distribution of sale proceeds t all co-owners/decree-holders in circumstance, be fixed or altered b er. The role of the Court Auctionee judicial directions. anted only after the Executing Cour regarding the adequacy of price and id amount deposited by responden 0.2025 shall be refunded to him posited in Court in connection with as to 54(2) duly than d the r XXI f the ntial imize nitial who n the the eeds, rs in d by neer ourt and dent him with JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-19-1931 of 2026 the said auction. receipt of a certif (ix) Respondent proceedings, sub proclamation of s on account of the 61. It is and conclude th months from the 05.03.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Uploaded on : M 26 Page N: 20 of 20 tion. The refund shall be made with ertified copy of this order. ent No.3 shall be at liberty to p subject to fulfillment of the con of sale, and no adverse inference s f the setting aside of the earlier sale It is clarified that the Executing Co e the fresh auction process prefe the date of receipt of this order. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes March 5, 2026 within four weeks from the date o to participate in the fresh auction conditions prescribed in the fresh ce shall be drawn against him solel sale. g Court shall proceed expeditiousl preferably within a period of fou (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No te of ction fresh olely ously four JITEN SHARMA 2026.03.05 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document