A judgment debtor cannot challenge a confirmed court auction sale beyond Article 127’s sixty-day limitation period.

The petitioner, a judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 33 of 1999, challenged the dismissal of his application seeking cancellation of a court auction sale conducted in execution proceedings in REP No. 36 of 2004.

The executing court thereafter settled the sale proclamation, reduced the upset price when there were no bidders, and sold the property in public auction on 1 September 2005 to the first respondent, whose sale was confirmed on 21 November 2006 and in whose favour a sale certificate was issued.

In 2008, despite knowledge of the court auction, the petitioner executed a registered sale deed conveying the property to K. Muthulakshmi.

He subsequently filed REA No. 329 of 2014 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, challenging the sale on grounds including non-compliance with Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC, excessive sale of the property, improper reduction of the upset price, and alleged collusion.

Whether the petitioner’s application challenging the court auction sale, filed in 2014 against a sale conducted on 1 September 2005 and confirmed on 21 November 2006, was barred by limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act?

Whether alleged violations of Order XXI Rules 64, 66, 72 and 90 CPC, including excessive sale, improper fixation or reduction of upset price, and procedural irregularities, warranted setting aside the auction sale?

Whether the petitioner, having subsequently alienated the property in 2008, retained the locus or subsisting interest to challenge the court auction sale?

Whether the executing and appellate courts committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 CPC?

The Court applied Article 127 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a limitation period of sixty days for an application to set aside a court auction sale; a belated challenge cannot ordinarily be entertained, and neither Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor Section 148 CPC can be used to extend that period.

Under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC, the executing court must sell only so much of the attached property as is necessary to satisfy the decree and must properly settle the terms of the sale proclamation; non-compliance may constitute a material irregularity, particularly where there is excessive execution.

The Court relied on Mohan Lal v. Hari Prasad Yadav, holding that an application challenging a court auction sale after expiry of the prescribed sixty-day period cannot be entertained; Annapurna v. Mallikarjun, concerning the rejection of belated objections to a confirmed sale; N. Vivekanandhan v. Ammapillai, holding that procedural violations generally render a sale voidable rather than void; Dadi Jagannadham v. Jammulu Ramulu, recognising the judgment-debtor’s limited right to deposit the decretal amount within the statutory period; Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh, recognising intervention in cases of manifest illegality; and K.M. Balasubramanian v. C. Loganathan, holding that a judgment-debtor who has alienated the property and has no subsisting interest lacks locus to challenge the auction sale.

The revisional power under Section 115 CPC is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and does not permit interference merely because another view is possible.

The Court held that the challenge was hopelessly belated: the sale occurred in 2005, was confirmed in 2006, and the application was filed only in 2014, well beyond the sixty-day period under Article 127.

The petitioner had also failed to deposit the decretal amount within the permissible period and could not invoke the statutory protection available to a judgment-debtor who promptly seeks to redeem the property.

Although the Court accepted that non-compliance with Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 could, in an appropriate case, invalidate a sale—particularly where property substantially exceeding the decretal requirement was sold—it found no comparable manifest illegality here.

The reduction of the upset price was made by judicial order after the absence of bidders and did not, on the facts, establish an unlawful sale.

The petitioner’s prior participation in the execution proceedings negated his plea of ignorance, while his subsequent sale of the property in 2008 meant that he had no subsisting right or interest when he filed the application in 2014.

His conduct, including litigation initiated by his children and attempts to obstruct execution, further supported the conclusion that the challenge was an effort to delay or defeat enforcement of the decree.

Accordingly, no jurisdictional or material error was shown in the orders of the subordinate courts.

The orders dismissing REA No. 329 of 2014 and confirming the auction sale were upheld.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

The executing court was additionally directed to dispose of REP No. 36 of 2004 finally within eight weeks from receipt of the High Court’s order.