Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Jalandhar Transport Cooperative Society – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Chadha – Respondent
ESA-11 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitation period for application under order xxi rule 89. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. judgment on limitation grounds for appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. final order dismissing the appeal. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the following order was passed on 19.03.2025:-
"Arguments of learned counsel for the appellant have been heard at length.
The appellant herein is a judgment debtor. His property was sold in a Court auction held on 01.05.2017. He filed an application on 14.09.2017, challenging the Court auction on the ground of illegality. In the alternative, he prays for permission to set aside the sale of deposit. He tendered the auction amount (+) plus 5% by depositing a cheque. As per the Order XXI Rule 89(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a person applies under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he has to first withdraw his application under Order XXI Rule 90 i.e. to set aside the same. In absence thereof, application under Order XXI Rule 89 is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the limitation period will begin to run from the date, the sale was confirmed and not from the date of auction. He submits that the Court auction was confirmed on 30.08.2017.
On a Court question, "as to how he is reading the date of sale as date of confirmation of auction, he prays for some time to search case law interpreting the provision?"
List on 21.03.2025, in the urgent list.
No further request, written or oral, for an adjournment shall be entertained."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has once again been heard.
3. He fairly submits that he could not find any judgment interpreting Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to lay down that the period of limitation for filing application under Order XXI Rule 89 will begin to run from the date of confirmation of sale and not from the date of Court auction.
4. Once, it is proved that the application filed by the appellant was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence, there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
5. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The limitation period for an application under Order XXI Rule 89 begins from the date of the auction, not the confirmation of sale.
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is sixty days, not thirty, and stay orders do not exclude this period.
The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 60 days from the date of sale, and the stay period does not save the limitation.
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 ....
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.
The court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC, emphasizing the need for timely objections in execution proceedings.
Execution application barred by limitation; auction sale legitimacy not reviewable under current application framework.
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
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
