WPMS/898/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 2910 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/898/2026 on 10 April, 2026

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                  Office Notes,
               reports, orders or
SL.             proceedings or
       Date                                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No               directions and
               Registrar's order
                with Signatures
      10.04.                        WPMS No.898 of 2026
      2026                          Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

An auction was conducted on 14.05.1997

and confirmed by the Executing Court. A sale

certificate was issued on 28.05.1997. Possession

was delivered to the respondent no.3. The

petitioner moved an application under Section 47

read with Rule 54, Rule 66, Rule 72, Rule 89,

Rule 90 of Order XXI and Section 151 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Miscellaneous Case

No.171 of 2013) for setting aside the sale. The

Executing Court, holding that the sale was

conducted through material irregularity and

fraud, set aside the sale by its order dated

12.09.2024. The respondent no.3 has challenged

the order dated 12.09.2024 through a

Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.78 of 2024, "Shri

Gurbax Singh vs. M/s S.K. Kahan Sons

Company". The contention of the petitioner in the

said appeal was that the appeal is not

maintainable. Learned Ist Additional District Judge, Dehradun, via the impugned order dated

09.03.2026, has held that the appeal is

maintainable. Learned appellate court has fixed

the appeal for final arguments. Hence, the

present writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

2. Heard Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

3. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, has contended

that the property was jointly purchased by a

partner of the respondent no.1 and the attorney

of the petitioner namely Gurbax Singh, who was

looking after the immovable property of the

petitioner. The sale of 60 acres of land for the

recovery of Rs.32,000/- causes substantial injury

to the petitioner. The sale was nullity. Mr. Aditya

Singh, Advocate, has relied upon a judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Desh Bandhu

Gupta vs. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh,

(1994) 1 SCC 131.

4. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate further

submitted that the sale was set aside by the Executing Court after taking into consideration

these facts along with other material facts. The

order dated 12.09.2024 has not been passed by

the Executing Court under Order XXI Rule 92

CPC, therefore, appeal against the said order

dated 12.09.2024 is not maintainable under Rule

1(j) of Order XLIII CPC.

5. The contentions raised by Mr. Aditya Singh,

Advocate, is fairly arguable.

6. Admit.

7. Notice is being issued to the respondents.

Steps to be taken within a week.

8. List on 14.05.2026. Till then, the further

proceedings of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.78

of 2024, "Shri Gurbax Singh vs. M/s S.K. Kahan

Sons Company" are stayed.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 10.04.2026

Pant/