Bijendra Kumar Mishra and Shravan Kumar Dubey for the Petitioners; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The relief which the petitioners seek is for setting aside the sale-deed dated 29 August 2012 by which Gata No. 884 ad measuring 0.9140 hectares of village Pakarihava, Tappa-Dhebarua, pargana Naugarh, tehsil Shohratgarh, district Siddharth Nagar has been sold in execution of a decree. The petitioners seek to question the legality of an order passed by the District Collector, Siddharth Nagar declining to entertain the representation submitted by the petitioners on the ground that the sale having taken place in execution of a decree of a competent Civil Court, the grievance of the petitioners cannot be entertained.

2. Suit No. 152 of 1999 was filed against one Chinka son of Surya by his wife, son and daughter before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siddharth Nagar for maintenance. A decree was passed in the suit on 17 November 2000. In execution proceedings, the movable property in question was put to auction on 30 May 2009 at which the fourth respondent was declared to be a purchaser. The sale was confirmed by the Executing Court on 26 August 2009 and in pursuance of the directions of the Court, possession was handed over to the fourth respondent on 24 May 2011 and a registered deed of sale was executed on 29 August 2012.

3. The petitioners challenged the sale on the ground that they had acquired share in the land in pursuance of a registered sale-deed dated 19 October 2004 and 12 December 2006. In an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court, noting that the petitioners had submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar, directed that a decision shall be taken in accordance with law. In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar has rejected the representation of the petitioners on the ground that the land was sold in execution of a decree of the Civil Court in pursuance of which a registered sale-deed was executed and possession has been handed over to the auction purchaser. Hence, the District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar has stated that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the representation.

4. In a matter as in the present, where an immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree passed by the Civil Court, it would be most inappropriate for the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere when sufficient remedies are provided under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. Order XXI Rule 90(1) stipulates that where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree holder, or the purchaser, or “any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale”, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.

6. Sub-rule (2) of Order XXI Rule 90 stipulates that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury.

7. Order XXI Rule 92(4) stipulates that where a third party challenges the judgment-debtor’s title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser, the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit.

8. Sufficient remedies are available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for applying to set aside an auction sale, which has been conducted in execution of a decree including at the behest of a third party which claims an interest or share in the property which is affected by the sale.

9. In this view of the matter, no recourse can be had for exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The District Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar was absolutely justified in declinin