Balaji v. Nargolkar: Auction Sale Set Aside

In the case of Balaji v. Nargolkar, the appellant, Mr. V. Balaji, and the respondent-decree holder, Mr. Amey Nargolkar, were involved in a dispute over an ex-parte order and auction sale of a property. The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the auction sale. The court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent-decree holder. Stay tuned for more updates on this case.


  • The appellant, aggrieved by the ex-parte order in Execution Petition No. 267/2005, filed an application before the Sub-Judge under Order 21 Rule 106 CPC.
  • The ex-parte order was passed on 26.09.2005 as no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.
  • The appellant contended that he learned about the ex-parte order only on 04.08.2006.
  • A publication was made regarding the auction of the property in a local newspaper.
  • The property was sold in a court auction on 03.02.2006, with the respondent-decree holder himself bidding for Rs.6,00,001/- and the sale being confirmed in his favor.
  • Ex-parte order dated 26.09.2005 was set aside and Execution Petition was directed to be heard afresh.
  • Appellant-judgment debtor filed a revision before the High Court as they were aggrieved.
  • High Court allowed the CRP on the grounds that the appellant had knowledge about the ex-parte order and notice of auction.
  • Even though the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings, no action was taken thereafter.

Also Read: Judgment on Service of Summons and Authenticity of Power of Attorney


  • Mr. V. Balaji appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Amey Nargolkar appeared on behalf of the respondent-decree holder.
  • The Execution Court noted that the appellant was not residing at the address to which the summon was sent.
  • Fresh notice should have been ordered if the summon was not duly served on the appellant-judgment debtor.
  • The appellant was set ex-parte on 04.08.2006 leading to further proceedings in the Execution Petition.
  • The property was auctioned, and the respondent-decree holder became the auction purchaser.

Also Read: Jurisdiction of Family Court in Cases under Muslim Women’s Protection Act


  • The publication of the auction was done in Malayalam
  • There is no evidence to prove that the appellant-judgment debtor was proficient in Malayalam
  • The appellant-judgment debtor did not receive effective service of notice
  • The Execution Court should have issued a fresh notice rather than proceeding with the auction

Also Read: Clarity on Arbitration Seat Jurisdiction


  • The appellant is allowed to make necessary application before the sub Registrar for cancellation of the court auction sale dated 03.02.2006.
  • The respondent-decree holder is permitted to withdraw Rs. 10,00,000 deposited before the Execution Court.
  • In satisfaction of the decree passed in O.S. No 271 of 1999, the respondent-decree holder is entitled to receive Rs. 12,50,000.
  • The amount of Rs. 12,50,000 is in full satisfaction of all the claims of the respondent-decree holder.
  • The concerned Sub-Registrar shall make necessary entries in the Registers.
  • The appellant-judgment debtor has already deposited Rs. 10,00,000 before the Execution Court.
  • The appellant-judgment debtor is required to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent-decree holder within eight weeks.
  • The court auction sale held on 03.02.2006 is set aside since the respondent-decree holder has been paid the decree amount as agreed by the parties.
  • Consequently, Execution Petition No 267/2005 has to be restored.


Case Number: C.A. No.-001482-001482 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *