(Prayer: Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 05.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.288 of 2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.)

1. This revision petition has been filed challenging the Docket Order dated 05.06.2026 in I.A.No.136 of 2014 in O.S.No.288 of 2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

2. I have heard Mr.P.S.Venkatasubramanian, for Mr.P.V.Selvarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Kumararajan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out to the order passed by the trial Court on a Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner, would mainly contend that despite specific earlier directions of this Court in CRP (NPD)No.1341 of 2022 by order dated 28.04.2022 and in CRP No.3991 of 2022 by order dated 01.12.2022, the trial Court has not gone by the directions issued by this Court, and instead, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has virtually delegated its power to the Advocate Commissioner in settling the proclamation of sale, that too, by passing a judicial order on a Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner. Learned counsel therefore states that the order passed by the trial Court is clearly in violation of not only the mandatory pre-requisites of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Civil Rules of Practice with regard to settlement of proclamation of sale, but also, violation of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier civil revision petitions.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would state that the trial Court has not committed any error and the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure as well as Civil Rules of Practice have been followed to the hilt by the Advocate Commissioner and only in order to protract the proceedings, the present revision is filed.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The trial Court, acting on a Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner, has passed the following impugned order:

                   “ Heard both sides. Records perused. On perusal of all the records it reveals that Hon’ble High Court in CRP No.4500/2025 on 25.3.2026, directed this Court to complete the auction proceeding within a period of 12 weeks from the date of uploading of the order.

                   As per above order the Advocate commissioner filed a Memo by fixing time line. The petitioner/D2 & D3 filed their objection on the ground that the proclamation of sale by public auction is step in execution proceedings only.

                   Already this Court appointed the Advocate Commissioner for Auction Sale. Against that order only, the petitioner/D2 preferred revision and Hon’ble High Court also directed this Court to complete proceedings. Hence there is no merits in objection. Hence, the Memo filed by Advocate Commissioner is Recorded and Approved the time line.”

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the procedure contemplated for settlement of proclamation of Sale has been thrown to the winds despite directions issued by this Court, not once, but twice. In this regard, the order passed by this Court in the first instance would assume relevance. In CRP (NPD)No.1341 of 2022 by order dated 28.04.2022 this Court directed the Mahila Court, Chengelpet to instruct the Commissioner appropriately and along the legal lines with the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Appu alias Subramania Patter Vs O.Achuta Menon (ILR 49 Mad 333), Jagannathan Vs Angamuthu Pillari (AIR 1990 Mad 226) and Ramaswami Naicker vs Nagammal (83 LW 199) and conduct the auction of the property and dispose of the proceedings within a period of six months.

8. Complaining of non-compliance with the directions of this Court, yet another revision came to be filed in CRP No.3991 of 2022 and the said revision at the instance of the present revision petitioner also came to be allowed, specifically observing that when the matter had been remitted to the trial court, (a) the trial Court had to appoint an Engineer to assist the Commissioner to fix the value of the property; (b) to fix the base price for the property after hearing the parties to the litigation or their counsels;(c) to direct the Commissioner to come up with a schedule for public auction; and (d) to decide on e-auction through popular private websites like 99acres.com depending on the location and the marketability of the property.

9. It is subsequent to this order that the Advocate Commissioner has filed a Memo enclosing a Draft Sale Proclamation for the approval of the Court, after serving copies on all the counsels for the parties. The first defendant filed objections to the said Memo stating that the procedure contemplated for settlement of proclamation of sale is set out in Civil Rules of Practice as well as the Code of Civil Procedure and the Advocate Commissioner is not entitled to submit any such Draft Sale proclamation which amounts to usurping the powers of the Court. Despite recording the said objections and without even dealing with the same, the trial Court has merely reiterated that this Court has directed the proceedings to be completed expeditiously and therefore, proceeded to approve the Memo filed by the Advocate Commissioner.

10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has to settle the proclamation and it cannot delegate the said power to the Advocate Commissioner. Despite specific directions issued in CRP No.3991 of 2022 dated 01.12.2022, the trial Court has not cared to follow any of the directions set out thereunder.

11. This Court in Paragraph No.2 of the order in CRP No.3991 of 2022 specifically set out the directions to be carried out by the trial Court and found that they have not been complied with. Without addressing the material objections placed by the revision petitioner, the trial Court has blindly approved the sale proclamation draft forwarded by the Advocate Commissioner, which is impermissible in law and clearly contrary to the directions of this Court in the earlier revision petitions.

12. Unfortunately, the trial Court has merely relied on the order passed in CRP No.4500 of 2025, wherein, the trial Court was directed to complete the auction proceeding within a period of twelve weeks, noticing the earlier orders in CRP Nos.CRP Nos.1341 of 2022 dated 28.04.2022 and 3991 of 2022 dated 01.12.2022.

13. Order 21 Rule 66 of Civil Procedure Code deals with proclamation of sale by public auction. In terms of Rule 66, the Court shall cause proclamation of intended sale to be made in a language of such Court and such proclamation is required to be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and judgment debtor and shall specify as accurately and fairly as possible, the description of the property to be sold and various other relevant particulars.

14. Rule 67 mandates that every sale proclamation shall be made in the manner prescribed by Order 21 Rule 54(2) of Civil Procedure Code.

15. In fact, Section 194 of Civil Rules of Practice mandates that any proclamation of sale has to be necessarily settled by the Judge, signed by him and thereafter an order of sale shall be made and further hearing of the suit shall be adjourned to a day, not more than 31 days from the date fixed by the Court for the sale.

16. In the present case, admittedly Rule 194 of Civil Procedure Code has not been followed and 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.

17. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the trial Court in Memo dated 05.06.2026 and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements for settlement of sale proclamation and comply with the directions in CRP Nos.1341 of 2022 dated 28.04.2022 and 3991 of 2022 dated 01.12.2022.

18. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the respondents are aged and for no fault of theirs, they have been made to run from pillar to post, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings finally within a period of three months in line with the directions issued in CRP Nos.1341 of 2022 dated 28.04.2022 and 3991 of 2022 dated 01.12.2022 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.