Judgment Debtors’ Post-Confirmation Offer To Pay Decree Could Not Undo Auction Sale, P&H HC Upholds Sale Certificate Direction

The judgment debtors challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, an order dismissing their application under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 CPC to set aside an auction sale.

The executing court had found that they knew of the execution proceedings and that the sale had been confirmed.

The judgment debtors also challenged a later order refusing permission to deposit the decretal amount through three cheques issued by third parties and directing issuance of a sale certificate to the auction purchaser.

The executing court had found that the auction purchaser had paid the sale price and that the cheques were unsigned.

The High Court held the challenge to the first order was not maintainable under Article 227 because a statutory appeal was available, and considered the challenge to the later order on its merits.

Order XLIII Rule 1(j), read with Order XXI Rule 92 CPC, provides an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an execution sale; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction ordinarily cannot be used as a substitute for an available statutory appeal.

The court further applied the principle that, once an auction sale is confirmed, the purchaser’s rights have accrued, and a judgment debtor’s subsequent willingness to satisfy the decree does not, by itself, undo the sale or defeat those rights.

Sections 47 and 151 CPC and Order XXI Rule 90 were relevant to the underlying applications; no precedent was cited.

The High Court declined to examine the merits of the challenge to the dismissal of the Order XXI Rule 90 application because the petitioners had an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) read with Order XXI Rule 92.

As to the later application, the auction had already been confirmed and the purchaser had paid the sale consideration. The petitioners’ subsequent offer therefore did not establish a right to have the sale undone.

Although payment by third-party cheques was not inherently invalid, the application did not establish a valid and unconditional tender capable of defeating the purchaser’s accrued rights; the earlier dismissal of the sale challenge also could not be indirectly reopened through a Section 151 application.

The High Court found no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order refusing the later deposit application.

The revision petition was dismissed, and the order directing issuance of the sale certificate was upheld; no order as to costs.