Auction-sale confirmation and issuance of the sale deed must be decided by the executing court under Order XXI CPC.

The petitioner, claiming to be the successful purchaser at an auction conducted on 30 January 2016 in Execution Case No. 372/2013, stated that he had deposited ₹21,35,000 as the bid amount.

He sought a direction requiring the Executing Court to confirm the sale and issue a sale deed in his favour.

The writ petition had remained pending since 2017, and no order or proceeding of the Executing Court was under challenge.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s entitlement to confirmation and a sale deed depended on consideration by the Executing Court under the applicable procedure.

1. Whether the High Court should itself direct confirmation of the auction sale and issuance of a sale deed, or direct the Executing Court to consider those matters in accordance with law.

2. Whether the Executing Court must examine compliance with the requirements of Order XXI CPC, including timely deposit of the sale consideration, before deciding whether to confirm the sale.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the supervisory jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner.

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs execution sales; the Executing Court must determine whether the applicable requirements—including those concerning deposit of the sale consideration—have been met and decide the legal consequences before confirming a sale or issuing a consequential sale deed.

No precedent was cited.

Because the petition challenged no particular order or proceeding, but sought to have the pending auction proceedings brought to a conclusion, the Court did not decide whether the sale was valid or should be confirmed.

It held that those questions—including compliance with Order XXI and the consequences of any non-compliance—fell for determination by the Executing Court.

Given the age of the execution proceedings and the stated 2016 auction, the Court directed that the petitioner’s grievance be considered expeditiously; it also found notice to the respondents unnecessary for issuing that limited direction.

The Executing Court in Ex. No. 372/2013 was directed to consider the petitioner’s grievance concerning the auction sale, including the prayers for confirmation and a consequential sale deed, strictly in accordance with law and Order XXI CPC.

All parties’ contentions were left open, and the Executing Court was asked to proceed expeditiously.