Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court

"Since the appellant has failed to establish any material irregularity or fraud in the publication or conduct of the sale, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order." Kerala High Court, in a judgment dated 15 September 2026, held that a court-conducted auction sale cannot be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) unless the judgment debtor specifically proves the existence of material irregularity or fraud.

A division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that mere assertions of undervaluation or procedural lapses, unsupported by evidence, are insufficient to invalidate execution proceedings.

The appellant, a judgment debtor in a suit dating back to 2008, challenged an execution sale conducted in 2023. The appellant contended that the property was significantly undervalued and that the proclamation of sale failed to meet the procedural mandates under Order XXI Rule 54 of the CPC, alleging a lack of proper publicity for the auction.

Scope of Judicial Intervention under Order XXI Rule 90

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant had successfully demonstrated "material irregularity or fraud" in the conduct of the auction sale to warrant setting it aside. The Court also examined whether the valuation of the property adopted by the executing court was arbitrary or contrary to the prevailing fair value registers.

Court Rejects Allegations of Undervaluation

The Court meticulously analyzed the valuation methodology, noting that the property in question lacked direct road access, a fact previously recorded in judicial proceedings. The bench found that the upset price fixed by the execution court at Rs. 1,25,000 per Are was consistent with, and even marginally higher than, the government-notified fair value for similar land.

Proper Valuation Fixed by Court

Addressing the comparison between the market value and the auction price, the Court noted that the execution court had relied on relevant fair value registers. The bench held that since the value fixed in the proclamation was not shown to be lower than the fair value, the appellant's claim of undervaluation remained unsubstantiated.

Compliance with Rule 54 of Order XXI CPC

Regarding the challenge to the publication of the sale proclamation, the Court emphasized the evidentiary burden on the applicant. It noted that the report of the Amin provided a categorical account of the publication process. The bench observed that in the absence of any contrary evidence, the presumption of regularity of official acts must prevail.

Evidence of Procedural Compliance

The Court concluded that the appellant failed to bring any material on record to establish that the publication was defective. The bench reiterated that an application under Order XXI Rule 90 requires proof of specific injury caused by a specific irregularity, neither of which was established by the appellant.

Final Observations on Protracted Litigation

The bench also took note of the appellant’s history of repeatedly approaching the High Court to delay the execution process, which had persisted for over 17 years since the decree was passed in 2009. The Court highlighted that the appellant had been granted ample opportunities to settle the debt but failed to do so, instead resorting to tactical litigation to stall the proceedings.

Decree Remains Unexecuted for 17 Years

Finding no merit in the appeal and noting the relevance of the cited precedents was precluded by the specific facts of the case, the Court dismissed the appeal. The ruling reinforces the sanctity of court-conducted sales and serves as a reminder that the execution process cannot be perpetually frustrated by unsubstantiated allegations of irregularity.

Date of Decision: 15 September 2026