Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant/Judgment Debtor – T.A.S. Jawahar Ayya alias C. Jawher Anand; Respondents – D.V. Karunakar (decree holder) and Ozone Homes Private Limited (auction purchaser).
  • Proceedings: Appeals Nos. 2235 and 2236 of 2026 and Application No. 4909 of 2025 arise from Execution Petition (E.P.) No. 105 of 2018 (C.S. No. 334 of 2017).
  • Background: The judgment debtor was ex parte ordered on 28‑02‑2025 after a 228‑day delay in filing an application to set aside that order. An auction of the property was conducted on 08‑10‑2025, with the auction purchaser identified as Sharath and later confirmed as Ozone Homes Private Limited.
  • Contentions – Appellant: Counsel S.A. Abu Backer Sidhic argued the delay was due to counsel’s negligence, that the debtor had a valid defence, and that the property’s market value was four times the debt. The appellant sought condonation of the 228‑day delay, numbering of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC (A.No. 197277/2025), permission to deposit the sale proclamation amount, and a stay on further sale‑certificate issuance.
  • Contentions – Respondent/Decree Holder: Counsel Govind Chandrasekhar contended the debtor had appeared on 11‑10‑2018, was aware of proceedings, and had been given ample opportunity to settle. He cited Rajnesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ved Prakash (2024 INSC 891) to reject blaming counsel, emphasized the debtor’s seven‑year inactivity, and argued the statutory deposit required under Rule 89 was not made.
  • Legal Points Discussed:
  • Order 21 Rule 89 CPC requires (i) a deposit of 5 % of the purchase price to the auction purchaser and (ii) deposit of the amount specified in the sale proclamation, less what the decree holder has already received.
  • The deposit is a condition precedent; without it, an application under Rule 89 is not maintainable (citing Annapurna vs. Mallikarjun (2014 6 SCC 397), Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu Ramulu (2001 7 SCC 71), Sundarammal vs. Kanagaraj (2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2980)).
  • The application must be filed within 60 days of the sale per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • Order 21 Rule 92(1) provides that where no Rule 89/90/91 application is made or it is disallowed, the court shall confirm the sale, making it absolute.
  • Findings: The court found no sufficient cause for the 228‑day delay, noted the debtor’s prior appearance and prolonged inactivity, and observed that the statutory deposit under Rule 89 was never made. Consequently, the Rule 89 application could not be entertained, and the sale had already been confirmed under Rule 92 with a sale certificate issued.

Final Outcome

  • Appeals Nos. 2235 and 2236 of 2026 are dismissed.
  • Application No. 4909 of 2025 is closed as infructuous.
  • The confirmation of the auction sale dated 08‑10‑2025 stands undisturbed.
  • The decree holder (D.V. Karunakar) is permitted to withdraw the balance of the decreetal amount, having already received 50 % of the amount.

Topics: Execution Proceedings, Property Auction