The Supreme Court held that Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC bars judgment debtors from challenging an execution sale on grounds they could have raised before the sale proclamation was drawn up. Failure to object to the sale of an entire property, rather than a sufficient part, at the appropriate stage precludes a subsequent challenge under Order XXI Rule 90.
Facts Of The Case:
In 1995, decree-holder Rasheeda Yasin filed a suit for recovery of ₹3.75 lakhs against Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1997. Execution proceedings began in 1998 to attach and sell the judgment debtors’ property—a house and site in Chennai. After multiple unsuccessful auctions due to high upset prices, the court, upon the decree-holder’s applications, progressively reduced the upset price. The property was ultimately auctioned on 12.09.2002 and purchased by G.R. Selvaraj for ₹11.03 lakhs. The judgment debtors filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale, contending the sale of the entire property was unnecessary and the price reduction was without notice. The executing court and appellate court dismissed their application. The High Court, however, set aside the sale, holding the executing court failed to consider if selling only a part could satisfy the decree. The auction purchaser’s legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the decree-holder filing Execution Petition No. 199 of 1998. Following the auction sale on 12.09.2002, the judgment debtors filed E.A. No. 475 of 2002 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC before the IXth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to set aside the sale, which was dismissed on 15.10.2004. This dismissal was appealed in C.M.A. No. 17 of 2005 before the IIIrd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which was also dismissed on 13.07.2007. Aggrieved, the judgment debtors filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2574 of 2007 before the Madras High Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the sale on 10.02.2009. The legal representatives of the auction purchaser then filed the present Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2011 before the Supreme Court, which allowed the appeal on 25.11.2025, thereby restoring the orders of the lower courts which had upheld the sale.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Ruling: Defective Affidavit Can Be Corrected in Insolvency Petitions
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made crucial observations on the interplay between Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a) and Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the CPC. It emphasized that while the executing court has a mandatory duty under Rule 66(2)(a) to consider whether the sale of a part of the property would suffice to satisfy the decree, this obligation does not operate in isolation. The Court held that the statutory bar under Rule 90(3) is overriding. This provision precludes a judgment debtor from raising any ground to set aside a sale which they could have taken on or before the date the sale proclamation was drawn up. Since the judgment debtors in this case were duly notified at every stage of the price reduction exercises and participated, yet failed to raise the objection regarding the sale of the entire property at the appropriate pre-sale stage, they were barred by Rule 90(3) from challenging the sale on that ground belatedly. The High Court erred in not applying this bar.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the auction purchaser’s legal representatives. It set aside the judgment dated 10.02.2009 passed by the Madras High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored and confirmed the judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed by the IIIrd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.M.A. No. 17 of 2005. This final decision upheld the order of the executing court dated 15.10.2004, which had dismissed the judgment debtors’ application to set aside the auction sale held on 12.09.2002. The sale to appellant G.R. Selvaraj was thus declared valid.
Case Details:
Case Title: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs. vs. K.J. Prakash Kumar and others Citation: 2025 INSC 1353 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2011 Date of Judgement: November 25, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar