Execution sales must adhere to the limitations set by procedural rules to ensure justice, with only sufficient property sold to satisfy the decree amount.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Challenging the impugned Order passed by the execution Court dismissing the application filed under section 47 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the sale deed dated 22.08.1996, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

2. This revision petitioner in CRP [NPD] No.1936 of 2024 has been filed by the judgment debtor. The Civil Revision Petition in CRP [NPD] No.2052 has been filed by the subsequent purchaser to an extent of 77 ½ cents from the judgment debtor. These revisions have been filed to set aside the sale deed on the ground of irregularity.

3. Brief background of filing these Civil Revision Petitions is as follows :

The decree holder, viz., the first respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.1494 of 1983 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1253.25 based on the promissory note said to have been executed on 03.01.1981 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs.1253.25 with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization. An appeal filed in A.S.No.203 of 1993 as against the judgement and decree has also been dismissed by the judgment dated 04.03.1994. Pursuant to the decree, it appears that an application has been filed in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.388 of 1995 for realization of the amount and an extent of 1 acre and 76 cents of the property belonging to the judgment debtor was attached. Thereafter, a sale has been effected. The auction purchasers, viz, the second respondent has purchased the entire extent of 1 acre 73 cents for a sum of Rs.25,300/-. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner in CRP.No.2052 of 2004 has purchased to an extent 76 ½ from the judgment debtor. According to him the attachment Order of the Execution Court has not been communicated to the concerned Sub Registrar. Therefore, he is a bonafide purchaser. That apart, the sale made by the Court suffers from material irregularity.

4. The judgment debtor took a plea for recovery of the decree amount and for a meagre amount, the entire extent of 1 acre 76 cents has been sold and it is totally contrary to Order 21 Rule 64 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Challenging the same, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor in CRP.No.1936 of 2004 would submit that he is ready to deposit interest for the amount deposited by the auction purchaser, i.e., 25,300/-, which comes to around Rs.63,000/- and the auction purchaser is also entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited before the trial Court, viz., 25,300/-. That apart, it is his contention that the entire auction is not valid in the eye of law.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser would submit that they are ready to pay interest at the rate of 9% which comes to around 63,000/- besides they may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in E.P.No.388 of 1995

7. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.

8. A perusal of entire materials makes it clear that the suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs.1,253/- with interest at the rate of 9% till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till the date of realization and for recovery of that meager amount, entire extent of 1 acre 73 cents has been brought for sale and has been sold in Court auction. As far as sale of the property for recovery of the decree amount, the execution Court has to strictly follow the procedure laid down in Order XXI Rule 64 of Code of Civil Proced