Order 21 Rule 97 CPC | Technical Objection That CMA Lies Instead Of Revision Cannot Defeat Merits Adjudication When Auction Purchaser Deprived Of Possession For Decades: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"A court sale that cannot deliver possession is a promise the law makes and fails to keep. The auction purchaser has parted with his money on the faith of a judicial sale; the law must not leave him holding a title he cannot enjoy." Observing that procedural rules cannot be wielded as an obstructionist shield to deprive a successful court auction purchaser of the fruits of a decree for over two decades, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected a review plea questioning the maintainability of a civil revision petition on the hyper-technical ground that an appeal ought to have been filed against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Harinath.N held that when a court has already adjudicated the dispute on merits and settled the ground position via a court-appointed Advocate Commissioner, upsetting the proceedings merely because the remedy was styled as a revision under Section 115 of the CPC rather than a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would defeat substantive justice and violate the settled principle that procedure is merely the handmaid of justice.

The background of the case reveals that the first respondent purchased property in Survey No. 285/1 in a court auction conducted in execution proceedings in October 2002, with the sale confirmed and the sale certificate issued in February 2003. When resistance was mounted against handing over possession, the auction purchaser filed an application under Order 21 Rules 97 to 103 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the executing court after fourteen years. The auction purchaser subsequently approached the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition, which was decided in his favour after a fresh Advocate Commissioner demarcated the boundaries and found that the review petitioner was unlawfully encroaching upon 0.99 acres of the auction-purchased land.

Aggrieved by the revision order, the review petitioner approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition but subsequently withdrew it with liberty to file a review before the High Court, asserting that the order under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC had the force of a decree and attracted a statutory bar under Section 115(2) of the CPC.

Whether a concluded adjudication rendered on merits in a civil revision petition can be reviewed and overturned solely because the aggrieved party should have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC?

Whether an encroacher who raised no demur to the maintainability of the revision petition or the Advocate Commissioner's survey report can rely on procedural discrepancies to defeat the rights of an auction purchaser waiting for possession for twenty-four years?

Examining the jurisdictional contour of review proceedings, the High Court observed that a court sale carries an indelible judicial assurance of title and possession that cannot be allowed to fail.

Judicial sales carry an enforceable assurance of quiet possession

The Court observed that an auction purchaser parts with valuable consideration on the faith and sanctity of a judicial sale, and the law cannot leave such a buyer holding an illusory title on paper without actual enjoyment of the property.

Justice Harinath.N noted that the dispute between the neighbouring auction purchasers had been exhaustively examined on the ground through a comprehensive survey undertaken by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the High Court alongside the Mandal Surveyor.

Substantive findings on title and encroachment cannot be reopened on mere technicalities

The Court underscored that the Mandal Surveyor's report categorically revealed that the review petitioner was in unauthorized possession of 0.99 acres of land in Survey No. 285/1 belonging to the first respondent auction purchaser.

Relying on the Latin maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, the Court held that it is in the paramount public interest that litigations reach a conclusive end, in alignment with the mandatory directives laid down by the Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi to arrest unconscionable execution delays.

Procedural law remains the handmaid of justice and cannot override equitable relief

Addressing the maintainability objection under Section 115(2) of the CPC, the Court invoked the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, reaffirming that procedural rules must never dominate substantive rights to produce wholly inequitable outcomes.

The Bench observed that even if the challenge to the executing court's order were styled as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal instead of a Civil Revision Petition, the statutory forum and the adjudication process before the Single Judge would remain identical.

Review jurisdiction cannot be exploited to perpetually stall delivery of possession

The Court took serious note of the fact that the review petitioner had actively contested the revision petition on merits, filed extensive written submissions, and raised no objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report or the maintainability of the revision before the final order was passed.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, the Bench lamented the plight of justice seekers dragged across judicial hierarchies and held that entertaining hyper-technical jurisdictional pleas after twenty-four years would only perpetuate procedural abuse.

The High Court held that the review petition was a calculated ploy to stall the delivery of possession to the bona fide court auction purchaser, and dismissed the application without costs.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2026