Short answer. Certain execution-sale provisions apply to judicial foreclosure sales as well, but only to the extent they are not inconsistent with, and may serve to supplement, Rule 68's own provisions — foreclosure is not entirely self-contained and can draw on that related body of rules.
What the law says
The provisions of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be applicable to the judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages under this Rule insofar as the former are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of the latter.
Rule 68, Section 8 — Applicability of other provisions. Read the full provision →
Foreclosure does not stand entirely alone
Judicial foreclosure of a real estate mortgage under this Rule is not a completely self-contained procedure. Specific provisions governing execution sales generally — Sections 31, 32, and 34 of Rule 39 — are made applicable to foreclosure sales as well, so a practitioner cannot rely solely on this Rule's text without also considering that related body of execution-sale procedure. Naming those particular sections, rather than incorporating Rule 39 wholesale, shows the borrowing is deliberately narrow rather than a blanket cross-reference to the entire execution rule.
The limiting condition
That borrowing is conditional, not blanket. Those execution-sale provisions apply to judicial foreclosure only insofar as they are not inconsistent with Rule 68's own provisions, and only where they may serve to supplement what Rule 68 already says — they cannot override or contradict the specific rules this Rule sets out. So if Rule 68 already speaks directly to a given procedural point, that specific text controls, and the corresponding execution-sale provision simply does not come into play for that point at all. This inconsistency test has to be applied provision by provision, since a given Rule 39 section might be perfectly compatible with Rule 68 on one point while conflicting with it on another.
A practical gap-filler
In effect, this section functions as a gap-filler: where Rule 68 is silent on a procedural point that execution-sale practice already addresses, that related procedure can be drawn on to fill the void, provided it does not clash with anything Rule 68 specifically provides for foreclosure sales. This matters in practice because Rule 68 does not restate every mechanical detail of how a public sale is conducted; parties and courts handling a foreclosure sale can look to the borrowed Rule 39 sections for that mechanical detail instead of treating Rule 68 as leaving those points entirely unaddressed. This borrowing binds everyone involved in the foreclosure sale — the mortgagee, the mortgagor, and the sheriff or officer conducting the sale — to the same combined set of procedures; none of them can insist on Rule 68 alone while ignoring the specific Rule 39 sections this section pulls in.
Related provisions
- Rule 68, Section 8 — Applicability of other provisions
- Rule 68, Section 7 — Registration
- Rule 68, Section 4 — Disposition of proceeds of sale