Trial Court Must Personally Settle Sale Proclamation, Cannot Delegate Judicial Power To Advocate Commissioner: Madras High Court

"Proclamation of sale has to be necessarily settled by the Judge, signed by him and thereafter an order of sale shall be made... the Court has merely endorsed a draft sale proclamation suggested by the Advocate Commissioner, that too, on a Memo which will not amount to compliance of the mandate of Rule 194 of Civil Rules of Practice." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 7, 2026, has held that a trial court cannot delegate its judicial duty of settling a sale proclamation to an Advocate Commissioner.

A bench of Justice P.B. Balaji observed that the procedure for settling a proclamation is a mandatory judicial function under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Civil Rules of Practice, which requires the presiding judge to personally settle and sign the document after hearing the parties.

The case reached the High Court through a revision petition filed by one M. Ramalingam, challenging a "docket order" passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. The Trial Court had approved a timeline and a draft sale proclamation submitted by an Advocate Commissioner via a memo, despite strong objections from the defendants regarding the legality of such a procedure.

The primary question before the court was whether a Trial Court can legally delegate the power to settle a sale proclamation to an Advocate Commissioner. The court was also called upon to determine whether approving a draft proclamation through a memo constitutes valid compliance with Rule 194 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Order 21 Rule 66 of the CPC.

Judicial Power Cannot Be Delegated To Commissioners

The High Court noted that the Trial Court had virtually abdicated its judicial responsibility by allowing the Advocate Commissioner to settle the proclamation of sale. Justice Balaji emphasized that the act of settling a proclamation is not a mere administrative task but a judicial one that requires the application of mind by the Judge.

The Court observed that the Trial Court had merely recorded and approved a timeline submitted by the Commissioner without addressing the material objections raised by the petitioner. The bench found that such an approach was "impermissible in law" and clearly contrary to the directions issued by the High Court in earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties.

"The Court has to settle the proclamation and it cannot delegate the said power to the Advocate Commissioner."

Mandatory Requirements Under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC

Referring to the statutory framework, the Court highlighted that Order 21 Rule 66 of the CPC deals specifically with the proclamation of sale by public auction. The rule mandates that the Court shall cause the proclamation to be made in its language and drawn up only after notice has been served to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor.

The Court further clarified that the proclamation must specify, as accurately and fairly as possible, the description of the property and other relevant particulars. This process ensures transparency and protects the interests of all parties involved in the execution proceedings, a safeguard that is bypassed when the task is delegated to a third party.

"Order 21 Rule 66 of Civil Procedure Code deals with proclamation of sale... such proclamation is required to be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and judgment debtor."

Significance Of Rule 194 Of Civil Rules Of Practice

Justice Balaji placed heavy reliance on Rule 194 of the Civil Rules of Practice, which explicitly states that every proclamation of sale must be settled by the Judge and signed by them personally. The Court found that in the present case, the Trial Court had simply endorsed a draft suggested by the Commissioner, which does not constitute legal settlement.

The bench remarked that the Trial Court's reliance on a previous High Court order to "complete the auction proceedings within 12 weeks" did not give it a license to throw mandatory procedural requirements to the wind. Expediency, the Court noted, cannot be a ground to bypass the rule of law or the specific protections afforded to litigants under the CPC.

"Rule 194 of Civil Rules of Practice mandates that any proclamation of sale has to be necessarily settled by the Judge, signed by him."

Failure To Follow Specific Directions In Previous Revisions

The Court expressed disappointment that the Trial Court had ignored specific directions issued in two previous Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 1341 and 3991 of 2022). Those directions included appointing an engineer to assist in valuation, fixing a base price after hearing the parties, and deciding on the feasibility of e-auctions through popular websites to ensure marketability.

The High Court found that the Trial Court "has not cared to follow any of the directions set out" in the earlier orders. By blindly approving the Commissioner's draft, the lower court failed to perform its duty to ensure the property was valued fairly and the auction was conducted in a legally sound manner.

The High Court set aside the impugned docket order dated June 5, 2026, and remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The Trial Court has been directed to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements for the settlement of sale proclamation and adhere to the directions given in the 2022 revision petitions.

While allowing the revision, the Court took note of the respondents' advanced age and their struggle to see the end of the litigation. Consequently, it directed the Trial Court to finally dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Date of Decision: 07 July 2026