Mandatory notice and proper sale proclamation govern immovable property execution; excessive sale of whole property can be set aside.

Notice to the judgment-debtor before settlement of the sale proclamation is mandatory in execution of immovable property, and the court must judicially settle the proclamation with fair particulars after considering objections; failure to do so is a fundamental breach, not a mere irregularity, and the sale is void. The executing court must also restrict sale to only so much property as is necessary to satisfy the decree; sale of the entire immovable property without real consideration of a smaller portion constitutes excessive execution and material irregularity causing substantial injury. On both grounds, the sale and its confirmation were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the executing court could sustain the court sale despite failure to serve notice on the judgment-debtor and to settle the proclamation of sale in accordance with Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the court sale of the entire immovable property for a small decretal amount, without considering sale of a smaller portion, amounted to excessive execution and justified setting aside of the sale.

Issue (i): Whether the executing court could sustain the court sale despite failure to serve notice on the judgment-debtor and to settle the proclamation of sale in accordance with Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Service of notice on the judgment-debtor before settlement of the terms of sale proclamation is a mandatory step in execution of immovable property. The court must judicially apply its mind to the material particulars required for proclamation, including fair and accurate particulars of the property and the date and place of sale. A mere schedule of auction dates, without notice to the judgment-debtor and without a proper proclamation settled after consideration of objections and relevant facts, amounts to a fundamental breach of procedure. Such non-compliance is not a mere irregularity when it deprives the judgment-debtor of an effective opportunity to participate in the process and affects the jurisdictional basis for sale.

Conclusion: The sale was void for breach of the mandatory requirements governing attachment and proclamation of sale, and the objection was maintainable notwithstanding the sale proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the court sale of the entire immovable property for a small decretal amount, without considering sale of a smaller portion, amounted to excessive execution and justified setting aside of the sale.

Analysis: The executing court was bound to consider whether only such portion of the property as was necessary to satisfy the decree should be sold. The Code requires the court to limit execution to what is necessary for satisfaction of the decree and to avoid sale of an unduly large asset when a smaller portion would suffice. Here, the property sold was substantially larger than required to satisfy the decree, and the court made no real effort to examine whether a smaller part could meet the decretal dues. That omission caused substantial injury and amounted to a material irregularity in the conduct of sale.

Conclusion: The sale was liable to be set aside for excessive execution and material irregularity causing substantial injury.

Final Conclusion: The court sale and its confirmation were set aside, and the judgment-debtor was granted relief by being required to satisfy the decretal amount from the rent-controller deposit while the auction-purchaser was protected by liberty to withdraw the sale consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: In execution of immovable property, notice to the judgment-debtor and a properly settled proclamation of sale are mandatory, and the court must sell only so much of the property as is necessary to satisfy the decree; failure on either count may render the sale void or liable to be set aside for material irregularity and substantial injury.

---