Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud
Full Text
(1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.
(2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud.
(3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up.
Explanation.—The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.
Plain English Summary
Governs applications to set aside execution sales of immovable property on grounds of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, mandating strict proof of substantial financial injury and barring pre-proclamation objections.
Key Legal Elements
- Twin Grounds: Material irregularity OR fraud in publishing or conducting the auction.
- Mandatory Substantial Injury (Sub-rule 2): Inseparable link between the irregularity and severe financial prejudice.
- Pre-Proclamation Waiver Bar (Sub-rule 3): Objections available at Rule 66 stage cannot be resurrected post-sale.
- Explanation on Attachment: Absence or defect of attachment is NOT a ground to annul the sale.
Practical Note
Challenging Court Auctions Under Rule 90: 1. The Twin Test - Saheb Khan v. Mohd. Yousuf Pak (2006) 4 SCC 476 & Desh Bandhu Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 131: To succeed under Rule 90, the applicant must satisfy a two-fold test: (i) there was a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale (e.g., no drum beating, false undervaluation, suppression of bidders); AND (ii) the property fetched an inadequate price directly causing substantial injury to the applicant. 2. Estoppel under Rule 90(3): If the debtor was served notice under Rule 66 and failed to appear, he cannot challenge property descriptions or reserve prices after the sale has concluded!
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहां किसी डिक्री के निष्पादन में कोई स्थावर संपत्ति बेची गई है, वहां डिक्रीदार या क्रेता अथवा आस्तियों के आनुपातिक वितरण में हिस्सा पाने का हकदार कोई अन्य व्यक्ति, या जिसका हित विक्रय से प्रभावित होता है, विक्रय को प्रकाशित करने या संचालित करने में किसी तात्विक अनियमितता (Material Irregularity) या कपट (Fraud) के आधार पर विक्रय को अपास्त कराने के लिए न्यायालय को आवेदन कर सकेगा।
(2) किसी भी विक्रय को तब तक अपास्त नहीं किया जाएगा जब तक कि साबित तथ्यों के आधार पर न्यायालय का यह समाधान न हो जाए कि आवेदक को ऐसी अनियमितता या कपट के कारण तात्विक क्षति (Substantial Injury) हुई है।
(3) इस नियम के अधीन कोई भी आवेदन ऐसे किसी आधार पर ग्रहण नहीं किया जाएगा जिसे आवेदक उस तारीख को या उससे पूर्व ले सकता था जिस दिन विक्रय उद्घोषणा तैयार की गई थी।
स्पष्टीकरण— बेची गई संपत्ति की कुर्की का न होना या उसमें कोई त्रुटि होना अपने आप में इस नियम के अधीन विक्रय को अपास्त करने का आधार नहीं होगा।