Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5176

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Srimathy, J.
V.S.Rethinakumari - Revision petitioner
Versus
S.R.Ratheesh and ors. – Respondents
C.R.P(MD)Nos. 2518, 1846 of 2024 and C.M.A(MD)Nos. 1413, 1414, 1349 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.10453, 14558, 14450 ,14459, 14463,14465, 14466, 14611, 14615, 14825 of 2024
Decided On : 03-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.Prabhakaran
For the Respondent:Mr.M.Natarajan, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Mr.Parekh Kumar, Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate

The court reaffirmed that sales of property in execution must comply with Order 21 of the CPC, ensuring no sale is beyond what is necessary to satisfy the decree. Failure to do so results in material irregularity.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 21 Rules 90, 95, and 106 - TNPID Act, 2012 - Execution petition - Revision petition filed against court auction sale held on 01.03.2018 - Issues of jurisdiction of Civil Court addressed - Finding that the sale was conducted in violation of mandatory provisions of CPC, resulting in substantial injury to the defendant - The impugned orders are set aside and the auction sale is invalidated due to non-compliance with required procedural safeguards - The matter is directed to be handled by TNPID Court for equitable resolution among creditors. (Paras 6, 13, 24, 25, 56)

Table of Content
1. multiple petitions were filed regarding auction sales. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant claims financial hardship caused by attached properties. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court must ensure due process in property sales under tnpid. (Para 12 , 14 , 19 , 20)
4. invalid sales or auctions affect the jurisdiction and rights of parties. (Para 15 , 22 , 29)
5. final court order set aside earlier rulings and auction sales. (Para 56)

ORDER :

S.Srimathy, J.

The issue in C.R.P.(MD)No.2518 of 2024, C.R.P.(MD)No.1846 of 2024 and C.M.A.(MD)No.1349 of 2024, C.M.A.(MD)No.1413 of 2024 and C.M.A. (MD)No.1414 of 2024 are arising out of common facts. Hence all the cases are tagged together and common order is passed.

2.(i). Heard Mr.P.Prabhakaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.M.Natarajan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, Mr.Parekh Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, Mr.C.Satheesh, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 in CRP(MD)No.2518 of 2024.

2.(ii) Heard Mr.P.Prabhakaran, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.A.R.M.Ramesh, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, Mr.Dilip Kumar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, Mr.C.Satheesh, the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 5, 6 and 7 in CMA(MD)No.1413 of 2024.

3.(i) The C.R.P.(MD)No.2518 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order, dated 12.12.2023 passed in E.A.No.41 of 2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The said E.A.No.41 of 2018 was filed under Order 21 Rule 90 inter alia praying to set aside the court auction sale held on 01.03.2018.

3.(ii) The C.R.P.(MD)No.1846 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order dated 06.02.2024 passed in E.A.No.8 of 2023 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The E.A.No.8 of 2023 was filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 95 inter alia praying to delivery of possession of schedule of property through Court Amin.

3.(iii) The C.M.A.(MD)No.1349 of 2024 was filed by the defendant V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.S.No.106 of 2011) against the order, dated 08.07.2021 passed in E.A.No.40 of 2018 in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011. The said E.A.No.40 of 2018 was filed under Order 21 Rule 106 read with section 151 of CPC inter alia praying to set aside the exparte order dated 28.04.2016 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2016 in O.S.No.106 of 2011.

3.(iv) The C.M.A.(MD)No.1413 of 2024 was filed by the respondent V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.A.No.4 of 2015) against the order, dated 31.08.2021 passed in O.A.No.4 of 2015. The said O.A.No.4 of 2015 was filed by the Competent Authority under section 4 of TNPID Act inter alia praying to make absolute the attachment order in G.O.Ms.No.872 Home (Police XIX) Department dated12.11.2012.

3.(v) The C.M.A.(MD)No. 1414 of 2024 was filed by the respondent V.S.Rethinakumari (in O.A.No.4 of 2015) against the order, dated 31.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.61 of 2016 in O.A.No.4 of 2015. The said I.A.No.61 of 2016 in O.A.No.4 of 2015 was filed by Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank inter alia praying to declare that the Bank has first charge over the properties schedule in G.O.Ms.No.872 dated12.11.2012 subject to prior mortgage.

4. FACTS IN C.R.P.(MD)NO.2518 OF 2024, C.R.P.(MD)NO.1846 OF 2024 and C.M.A.(MD)NO.1349 OF 2024: The defendant/Judgment debtor V.S.Rethinakumari in the suit is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintiff/decree holder S.R.Ratheesh in the suit is the 1^st respondent herein. The auction purchaser P.Robert Raj is the 2^nd respondent herein. Subsequently, respondents 3 to 7, who are Income Tax Officer, District Registrar of Registration Department and Revenue Officials, were impleaded as respondents 3 to 7 as per Order of this Court, dated 30.10.2024 since they are n