Inclusion of CPC Execution Proceedings

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in the case of Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (2025) ruled that once an auction sale is confirmed and the aggrieved party has not sought to set it aside, a separate suit challenging the order confirming the sale is expressly barred under Order XXI Rule 92(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

What was the Background of Danesh Singh & Ors. v. Har Pyari (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from a 1970 mortgage by Duli Chand in favor of New Bank of India (Respondent No. 6) for a tractor loan. 
• Upon default by the mortgagor, the bank obtained an ex parte decree in 1984. 
• During the pendency of the suit and after the decree, two purchasers (Respondents 1 & 2) bought parcels of the mortgaged land from one of the judgment debtors in 1985. 
• In execution proceedings, the entire mortgaged property was auctioned in 1988, with the appellants (sons of a judgment debtor) declared as the highest bidders for ₹35,000. 
• The auction sale was confirmed in August 1988, and possession was delivered to the appellants in June 1989. 
• Subsequently, in July 1989, the respondents filed a separate civil suit seeking a declaration that the auction sale concerning their purchased portion was void, alleging irregularities and fraud in the auction process. 
• The Trial Court, Appellate Court, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them owners and granting joint possession. 
• The defendant-Appellants moved to the Supreme Court challenging these concurrent rulings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court set aside the concurrent rulings of the lower courts and held that the separate suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 was not maintainable. 
• The Court observed that since the respondents claimed to be aggrieved by the auction sale, the separate suit would not be maintainable as per the express bar under Order XXI Rule 92(3) CPC, as the auction sale had been confirmed under Rule 92(1) and no application was made under Rules 89 or 90. 
• The separate suit was also barred under Section 47 of CPC, which mandates that all execution-related questions be determined by the executing court alone, and not by a separate suit. 
• The Court held that the respondents should have filed an application under Section 47 CPC instead of a separate suit. 
• The Court explained that although Rule 92(3) bars separate suits, parties may still file applications under Section 47 CPC on limited grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or nullity of the sale. 
• The Court clarified that Section 47 cannot be used to bypass limitation periods under Rules 89, 90, or 91. If an application under Section 47 is actually based on grounds falling under these Rules, the executing court must treat it accordingly, and it will fail if the limitation period under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has expired. 
• Only when a party challenges the auction sale on the ground that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction and a nullity can a Section 47 application be maintained after confirmation of sale. 
• The Court emphasized that to maintain a separate suit, one must overcome both the bar under Rule 92(3) and demonstrate that Section 47's bar does not apply. Parties to the original decree or their representatives must use Section 47 applications, not separate suits. 

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Referred to? 

About Order XXI of CPC: 

About: 

• Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with the execution of decrees and orders. 
• It contains detailed provisions regarding the auction sale of property in execution proceedings. 
• The Order provides a comprehensive framework for conducting auction sales, confirming or setting aside such sales, and the rights of various parties involved. 

Rule 92 - Confirmation of Sale: 

• Rule 92(1) provides that the court shall confirm the sale after satisfying itself about the proper proclamation and procedure. 
• Rule 92(2) allows the court to set aside the sale on specific grounds such as material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, or if the property was sold for an amount substantially below the market value. 
• Rule 92(3) bars any person against whom an order under Rule 92 is made from instituting a separate suit regarding the order. 
• This provision creates a statutory bar against filing separate suits challenging confirmed auction sales. 

Section 47 of CPC: 

• The Court executing a decree has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all questions arising between parties to the suit relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. 
• Such questions must be decided by the executing Court itself and cannot be the subject of a separate suit. 
• The executing Court has the authority to determine whether any person is or is not a representative of a party for the purposes of this section. 
• A plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are both considered parties to the suit under this section. 
• A purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree is deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. 
• All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to the purchaser or their representative are considered questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.