Auction sales under CPC require strict adherence to mandatory deposit rules, failing which the sale is void ab initio and cannot be ratified by subsequent actions.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of filing this civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) in Original Civil Suit No. 14/2008, whereby the learned Court below dismissed the petitioner’s application filed under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking determination of questions arising in the course of execution of the decree.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that the respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 6/1993 against the father of the petitioners, late Shri Mangi Lal Jain, which was decreed in favour of the respondent. In execution of the said decree dated 03.05.1993, the agricultural land measuring 38 Bigha 1 Biswa situated at Nawalpura, Tehsil Kapasan, belonging to the petitioners, was auctioned and purchased by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application dated 16.02.2008 under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, raising objections to the anomalies alleged to have occurred during the auction proceedings, and sought rejection of the respondent’s application filed under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC for delivery of possession of the auctioned land. It was contended that although the learned executing court had confirmed the auction on 07.04.2005, the same was withdrawn on 02.08.2005, and again re-confirmed on 02.02.2006. The respondent subsequently moved an application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC on 17.12.2007 for delivery of possession, along with the sale certificate issued under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC, pursuant to which a warrant of possession was issued and the matter remained pending. The petitioners further contended that the said application under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC was barred by limitation, as it had not been filed within the prescribed period, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the warrant of possession. It was also urged that the sale certificate itself was issued beyond the limitation period, and hence, the respondent was not entitled to seek enforcement of the decree. The petitioners also objected to the respondent’s attempt to transfer the agricultural electricity connection relating to Khata No. 38-4- 4, which, according to them, was impermissible under law. It was further submitted that the executing court did not have the power to withdraw its earlier confirmation order dated 07.04.2005, as such an appealable order could only be challenged through an appeal.

3. The respondent, in reply, contended that the provisions of the Limitation Act were not applicable to applications under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC, since the sale had already been completed and the sale certificate duly issued and registered in the respondent’s favour, thereby conferring absolute ownership. It was also submitted that the executing court was competent to review or modify its own order in the interest of justice, and that the petitioners, being judgment debtors, had no locus to raise objections beyond the scope of Order 21 Rule 95 CPC.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned court below, vide order dated 15.07.2010, dismissed the petitioners’ application, observing that no proceedings under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC were pending and that if the petitioners had any objections regarding the auction amount, the same could have been raised during the execution proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order