Allowed¶8

T.a.S.Jawahar Ayya v. D.V. Karunakar and 2 others

Madras HC12 Nov 2025A/5470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revocation of vakalat of Judgment Debtor's earlier counsel; Judgment Debtor's right to participate in execution proceedings despite being set ex parte; auction sale dated 09.10.2025 cannot be confirmed nor sale certificate issued within 60 days under Article 127 Limitation Act; application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC contemplated; Order 14 Rule 10, Order 29 Rule 3 Original Side Rules; Section 151 CPC; A No.5470 of 2025 in E.P.No.105 of 2018; order by Master, dated 12.11.2025; application allowed, no cost.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed without costs: the vakalat given to the Judgment Debtor's earlier counsel is revoked, enabling acceptance of the fresh vakalat. ¶8

T.a.S.Jawahar Ayya Vs D.V. Karunakar and 2 others — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed without costs: the vakalat given to the Judgment Debtor's earlier counsel is revoked, enabling acceptance of the fresh vakalat.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the vakalat given to the Judgment Debtor's earlier counsel should be revoked so that the fresh vakalat of new counsel can be accepted, on the ground that the earlier counsel failed to perform his duty. +2 more

¶3

Court's answer

The application for revocation of the vakalat ought to be allowed: the Judgment Debtor categorically stated that the earlier counsel failed to perform his duty and failed to defend him, which resulted in the sale of the Judgment Debtor's property, a notice was sent to the earlier counsel as seen from the records, and the petitioner thereby substantiated his claim.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The decree holder's objection that the Judgment Debtor, having been set exparte, has no right to participate without setting aside the exparte order is not maintainable and is rejected: in execution proceedings, at every stage the Judgment Debtor has a right to participate even though he was set exparte in the earlier proceedings.

¶6

Key takeaways

The auction purchaser's claim that the sale should be confirmed cannot be entertained at this stage: the sale was conducted only on 09.10.2025, and since an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC lies within 60 days from the date of sale under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, before expiry of those 60 days no sale under a decree can be confirmed and no sale certificate can be issued; the objection is rejected.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution petition (E.P.No.105 of 2018): Application by the Judgment Debtor under Order 14 Rule 10 and Order 29 Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 151 CPC to revoke the vakalat of his earlier counsel, who allegedly failed to defend him, resulting in orders against him and the sale of his property on 09.10.2025, and who refused to give change of vakalat; the Judgment Debtor wished to file an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. HELD: (i) the application is allowed, the Judgment Debtor having substantiated that the earlier counsel failed in his duty and notice having been sent to that counsel; (ii) the decree holder's objection that the Judgment Debtor, set exparte earlier, cannot participate without setting aside the exparte order is rejected, since in execution proceedings the Judgment Debtor has a right to participate at every stage; (iii) the auction purchaser's claim for confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate is premature and rejected, as within the 60-day period under Article 127 of the Limitation Act for an Order 21 Rule 89 CPC application no sale can be confirmed nor sale certificate issued. No costs.

¶1

¶2

A No.5470 of 2025 in

¶3

E.P.No.105 of 2018

MASTER

12.11.2025

ORDER

This is an application filed by the applicant / Judgment Debtor to revoke the vakalat to his earlier counsel U/o 14, Rule 10 and Order 29 Rule 3 of Original Side Rules and Section 151 C.P.C.

¶8

The petitioner stated that he is the Judgment Debtor. Initially, he engaged his earlier advocate. Anyhow, his earlier advocate did not follow the case properly and which is resulted in orders by court against him. Hence, he want to revoke the vakalat given to earlier counsel. Moreover, the earlier counsel refused to give change of vakalat. Hence, this application is filed.

¶9

Heard. Records perused. The petitioner filed an affidavit to that effect. Petitioner side argued that his party being a Judgment Debtor intended to file an application Under order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C to set aside the same that has happened in the above E.P on 09.10.2025. For that his vakalat should be accepted by revoking earlier vakalat since the earlier counsel failed to perform his duty towards the Judgment Debtor.

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

¶12

For the decree holder as well as auction purchaser side respective learned counsels present and submitted that the Judgment Debtor already set exparte and hence, he has no right to appear without setting aside the exparte order. For the auction purchaser side it is submitted that sales certificate to be issued by confirming the sale.

¶13

This petitioner categorically stated that the earlier counsel for the Judgment Debtor failed to perform his duty and failed to defend the Judgment Debtor. And which resulted in sale of property belongs to the Judgment Debtor. A notice also sent to the earlier counsel seen from the records. Thus, the petitioner substantiate his claim. At this stage, this application ought to be allowed.

¶14

The objection of decree holder that the Judgment Debtor has already set exparte and now he has no right to participate in the proceedings without setting aside the exparte order. This objection is not maintainable. Since, in execution proceedings, in every stage the Judgment Debtor has a right to participate even though he has set exparte in the earlier proceedings. Hence, this objection is rejected.

¶15

The other claim of auction purchaser to the effect that sale to be confirmed cannot be entertained at this stage. The sale is conducted only on 09.10.2025. For filing an application under order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C, a time frame is fixed at 60 days from the date of sale under article 127 of the Limitation Act. Thus, without expiration of 60 days from the date of sale no sale under a decree cannot be confirmed, also no sale certificate could be issued. Hence, this objection also rejected.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

¶18