The court emphasized that objections to auction sale must demonstrate substantial injury and that delay in filing such objections may indicate obstruction of the execution of the decree.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

1. This petition filed on 17.01.2023 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge -02, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi in Execution Petition no. 219/2018 (`Executing Court') whereby the Executing Court has dismissed the objections filed by the Petitioner herein under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (`CPC') for setting aside the auction sale dated 20.06.2019.

2. The Petitioner herein is the Judgment Debtor No.2.

2.1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Decree Holders and the original plaintiffs in the civil suit.

2.2. Respondent No.3 is the Judgment Debtor No.1 and Respondent No. 4 is the Judgment Debtor No.3.

2.3. Respondent No.5 is the Auction Purchaser appointed by the Executing Court.

3. A civil suit bearing No.1207/11/2010 (New No. 9789/2016) was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking partition of property bearing no. WZ- 230, Gali no. 4, Guru Nanak Nagar, MBS Nagar Tilak Nagar, Delhi-110018 measuring 75 sq. yards. (`subject property') on 09.12.2010.

3.1. The Judgment Debtors who were impleaded as defendants in the civil suit were proceeded ex-parte on 15.12.2010.

3.2. Vide judgment dated 21.07.2016 a preliminary decree was passed by Additional District Judge -05 West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi (`Trial Court') declaring that the Decree holders (i.e., the plaintiffs) are entitled to 1/4th undivided share in the subject property jointly. It further held that the remaining 3/4th share belonged to Judgment Debtors No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively in equal shares.

3.3. The final decree was passed by the Trial Court on 12.01.2017 holding that the property had to be sold in auction sale and the sale proceeds be divided in four (4) equal shares between the Decree Holders and the Judgment Debtors respectively.

4. The execution petition was filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2 in February 2018 and initially, the Executing Court appointed an Advocate for conducting the auction of the subject property on 18.02.2019. However, before the auction could be held, Petitioner herein i.e., Judgment Debtor No.2 filed an application before the Trial Court offering to value the subject property at Rs. 94 lakhs and pay the Decree Holders and Judgment Debtors No. 1 and 3, 1/4th share each. In other words, the Judgment Debtor No.2 offered to pay Rs. 23.5 lakhs each to the Decree Holders, Judgment Debtor No.1 and Judgment Debtor No.3 respectively.

4.1. The Executing Court accepted the offer of the Judgment Debtor No.2 and stayed the order of auction of the subject property. However, subsequently, it transpired that the Judgment Debtor No.2 was unable to make any payment in terms of the statement made before the Court and the Judgment Debtor No.2 came forward before the Court to withdraw his offer and requested the Executing Court to proceed with the auction at the hearing dated 05.04.2019.

4.2. In these circumstances, the Executing court directed that the auction sale of the subject property be proceeded with and fixed the date of 20.06.2019 for the auction. The reserved price of the subject property has been fixed at Rs. 44,30,000/-.

4.3. The auction was conducted by the Court Auctioneer on 20.06.2019 after complying with all the procedures of publication, affixation and proclamation and an auction purchaser i.e., Stable Developers Private Limited (i.e., Respondent No.5), was declared as the highest auction purchaser to offer to pay a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs to purchase the subject property. The auction purchaser deposited 25% of the amount i.e., Rs. 11,25,000/- by way of a bank draft with the Court Auctioneer on the same date.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner (i.e., Judgment Debtor No.2) herein filed objections under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC to the said auction purchase, which were dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 upholding the auction.

5.1. Pertinently, in the said objections, the Petitioner failed