DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner to assail the order dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, in Execution Case No. 363 of 2019 titled “Rajinder Kaur & Ors. vs. Late Joginder Kaur & Ors.” was dismissed.

2. The dispute pertains to House No. 2781, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. A preliminary decree for partition in respect of the said property was passed on 06.01.2017 in favour of the widow and five children of late Khushal Singh, declaring each of them entitled to 1/6th share therein. It is not in dispute that the widow, Joginder Kaur, has since expired. Owing to the applicable by-laws of the Chandigarh Estate Office Rules, which prohibit fragmentation of such property, partition by metes and bounds was not feasible. Consequently, the Executing Court proceeded to effect partition by way of auction.

3. In the first auction conducted on 06.01.2025, Arvinder Singh emerged as the highest bidder with an offer of ₹2,49,50,000/-, while one of the decree-holders submitted the second highest bid of ₹ 2,49,00,000/-. However, as Arvinder Singh failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period, the bid was cancelled.

4. A subsequent auction was held on 20.04.2025, but no bids were received. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-2), the Executing Court fixed a fresh schedule for auction on 15.10.2025. The auction was conducted accordingly, in which, respondent No.3 Pankaj Bansal was declared the highest bidder with an offer of ₹ 2,10,00,000/-.

5. On the same day (15.10.2025), some of Decree-Holders and judgment-debtors, moved an application (Annexure P-3) before the Executing Court raising objections to the manner in which the auction had been conducted. It was alleged that the sale proceedings were neither fair nor transparent and had been conducted in undue haste. It was further contended that sale value was much lesser than the market price.

6. Subsequently, on 23.10.2025, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-4), under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Section 151 CPC with detailed objections and seeking setting aside of the auction sale. The principal grounds urged were that the property had been sold at a grossly inadequate price; that mandatory compliance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 read with Order XXI Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been effected; that no base price had been fixed prior to the auction; and that the sale was vitiated by collusion amongst bidders, who were allegedly accompanying one of the legal representatives of a judgment-debtor. The said application was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure P-5). Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P-6), which too came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure P-7).

7. It is these two orders dated 19.01.2026 and 16.02.2026—Annexures P-5 and P-7 respectively, which have been impugned before this Court on various grounds, which shall be adverted to in the subsequent part of this judgment.

8. Upon hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, notice of motion was issued. Respondent No.3, the auction purchaser, who had lodged a caveat, entered appearance and contested the petition.

9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and has carefully perused the record.

10. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it is necessary to notice the statutory framework governing sales by court auction.

11. Order XXI Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code provides the procedure for conducting of sale, wherever a property is ordered to be sold by public auction