Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY
Pothuraju Hymavathi – Appellant
Versus
Raghu Babu Bandi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)
Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode and Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, leaned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 (CPC) has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Nellore in EA.NO.44 of 2023 in E.P.No.738 of 2022 in OS.No.103 of 2016.
3. The appellants are the defendants/J.Drs and the respondent is the plaintiff/D.Hr/auction purchaser.
4. The respondent filed O.S.No.103 of 2016 interalia for recovery of the suit amount with interest and costs. The suit was decreed on 13.12.2018. The respondent filed E.P.No.738 of 2022. In the Execution proceedings, the auction scheduled property was sold in public auction on 16.03.2023, after publication in daily newspaper-Eenadu. In the publication, the date for auction was mentioned as 16.03.2022. The auction took place on 16.03.2023. The plaintiff/decree holder also participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and was a successful bidder.
5. The appellants filed application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC vi
Material irregularity in auction sale requires proof of substantial injury; mere typographical errors do not suffice.
A sale under Order XXI Rule 90 can only be set aside if the applicant proves both material irregularity and substantial injury resulting from it.
Unless there is material irregularity, which has resulted in causing substantial injury to judgment-debtor in conducting sale, question of interference by setting aside sale which was conducted by co....
The court upheld the validity of the execution sale, ruling that the appellant failed to prove material irregularities or substantial injury, affirming the finality of the trial court's decree.
The main legal point established is that an auction sale can be set aside if there are substantial irregularities and fraud, and the application to set aside the sale was filed within the limitation ....
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
Court sales affected by irregularities in publication do not invalidate the sale but render it voidable, allowing for remedies under Rule 90 of the CPC.
The executing court is required to assign reasons for its conclusion in an order, and failure to do so may result in the order being set aside.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
