On December 19, 2025, the High Court of Madras made a big decision in a case about an auction sale that happened in Virudhachalam. The case was about Arumugam, the person who bought the property at the auction, and Pazhaniappan Chettiar, the person who owed money.
Arumugam bought a property at a court auction, but things got messy when the court allowed a request under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) filed by Pazhaniappan Chettiar. Arumugam argued against this decision, saying the request was not right.
Arumugam's Side: Arumugam's lawyer, Mr. P. Ravi Shankar Rao, argued that the request by Pazhaniappan Chettiar under Section 47 was not the right way to go. He thought Pazhaniappan should have used a different rule (Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC) to challenge the auction. Arumugam also claimed that the auction was done correctly.
Pazhaniappan's Side: Mr. N. Suresh, representing Pazhaniappan, argued that the properties were valuable and should not have been auctioned without proper notice. He pointed out that the notice was not given correctly, and there were mistakes in the auction process.
Justice P.B. Balaji, after looking at the case, found several problems with the auction process, including not giving proper notice and other mistakes. The court said:
"The sale without notice to the person who owes money is invalid."
The court agreed with the decision to allow the Section 47 request, saying that the auction was not done according to the rules.
The court rejected Arumugam's request, highlighting the importance of following rules in auction sales. This case shows how important it is to make sure all rules are followed in property auctions to avoid problems.
This summary is based on the court's decision dated December 19, 2025, from the High Court of Madras.
