The court confirmed that applications for setting aside auction sales must be filed within 60 days as per statutory requirements, and reasons for delays must be strictly justified to be considered.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the judgment debtor in Ex.No.51/2018 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara (Executing Court) is directed against the impugned order dated 14.08.2024, passed on I.A.Nos.13 and 15, whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing of the said application were rejected by the Executing Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 09.09.2017, a joint memo was filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtor and first respondent/ decree holder which culminated in a Lok-Adalat award dated 09.09.2017. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the said award, the first respondent initiated execution proceedings in which the petition/ execution schedule property was brought to public auction and the second respondent auction purchasers purchased the scheduled property in a public/ court auction conducted on 25.09.2023 and the matter was adjourned to 27.11.2023. Subsequently, on 20.01.2024, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application I.A.No.13 under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC. It is a matter of record if the petitioner deposited certain amounts before the Executing Court subsequent to the interim order dated 27.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26278/2023, which was disposed of by this Court, vide a final order dated 08.01.2024 by holding as under:

"In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ or order or direction directing the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Ramanagaram in Execution Case No.51/2018 to receive the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 89 R/w Section 151 of CPC at Annexure - F to the writ petition and set aside the sale order dated 25.09.2023 made in favour of the 2^nd respondent at Annexure - E in Ex.51/2018 in respect of the Petition Schedule Property, in accordance with law.

b) Grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding costs, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard.

3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner was arraigned as judgment debtor in Execution Proceedings No.51/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagar in which, the subject property was brought to sale on 25.09.2023 in which, the respondent No.2 is the auction purchaser. Subsequently, on 10.10.2023, the executing Court adjourned the matter to 27.11.2023.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since the prescribed period to file an application under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC for setting aside the same would stand expired on 23.11.2023, the petitioner/judgment debtor approached the Executing Court on 23.11.2023 along with an appropriate application and since the executing Court did not receive the said application on account of strike by the Bar Association, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition in which, this Court passed the interim order on 27.11.2023.

5. It is submitted that as directed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited a total sum of Rs.12.00 lakhs. It is further submitted that on 27.11.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC, which is pending adjudication.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would dispute the various contentions urged by the petitioner and submitted by t