Supreme Court of India on Execution Sale: Application of Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC.

The Supreme Court held that a judgment debtor who fails to raise available objections regarding execution sale prior to the sale proclamation is barred under Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC from later challenging the sale. The Court emphasized that while executing courts must consider selling only that portion of property necessary to satisfy the decree under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, such duty does not override the statutory bar created by Rule 90(3). In the instant case, judgment debtors were on notice at all stages and participated in proceedings, yet failed to raise the objection; their belated plea to set aside the sale of 12.09.2002 was therefore impermissible.

1. Original Suit (O.S. No. 9158 of 1995): Rasheeda Yasin sued Komala Ammal and K.J. Prakash Kumar for recovery of ₹3,75,000 with 18% interest.
2. Decree: Passed ex parte on 16.04.1997 in favor of the plaintiff.
3. Execution Petition (E.P. No. 199 of 1998): Sought attachment and sale of the judgment debtors’ property (house and site ~2120 sq. ft., Choolai, Chennai).
4. Auction Attempts: Multiple auctions from 1999–2002 failed due to lack of bids. Upset price reduced sequentially from ₹16.25 lakh to ₹11.03 lakh.
5. Sale: G.R. Selvaraj successfully purchased property on 12.09.2002. Sale certificate issued on 10.01.2003.
6. Objection by Judgment Debtors: Filed E.A. No. 475 of 2002 seeking to set aside sale alleging improper upset price reduction, sale of entire property instead of portion sufficient to satisfy decree, and procedural irregularities under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC.
7. High Court (10.02.2009): Set aside the sale, holding the entire property sale caused substantial injury to the judgment debtors.

1. Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC: Bars objections to a sale based on grounds that could have been raised before the proclamation of sale. Acts as a “caveat emptor” warning to judgment debtors to be vigilant.
2. Order XXI Rule 66 CPC: Mandates the executing court to consider whether part of the property suffices to satisfy the decree. However, this obligation does not override the statutory bar under Rule 90(3).
3. Key Precedents:
4. Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao (1989 Supp 2 SCC 693) – Executing court must sell only portion necessary to satisfy decree.
5. Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma (1977) 3 SCC 337 – Sale of property beyond decretal requirement is unnecessary.
6. Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh (1994 1 SCC 131) – After insertion of Rule 90(3), failure to raise pre-sale irregularities bars later challenge.
7. Application to Facts: Judgment debtors were on notice during all stages of upset price reduction, participated partially, and failed to object to sale of full property. Therefore, barred from setting aside sale under Rule 90(3).

1. Order XXI Rule 66 CPC – Execution sale; court to consider sale of property or part thereof necessary to satisfy decree.
2. Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC – Bar on raising grounds after proclamation of sale if they could have been taken earlier.
3. CPC, 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure) – Execution proceedings.

1. Appeal Allowed: High Court order (10.02.2009) setting aside the sale is set aside.
2. City Civil Court Order Confirmed: Judgment of 13.07.2007 dismissing E.A. No. 475 of 2002 upheld.
3. Auction Sale Validated: Sale of 12.09.2002 remains effective.
4. Costs: No order as to costs.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1353

Case: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs v. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice Alok Aradhe

Date of Decision: 25 November 2025

Civil Appeal No.: 8887 of 2011