Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Auction Sale Can't Be Challenged On Grounds Which Could Have Been Raised Before Proclamation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 25) held that a judgment-debtor cannot, at a belated stage, assail an auction sale in execution proceedings, particularly once the sale has been completed. The Court observed that such a challenge is impermissible under Order XXI Rule 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure when the judgment-debtor had a prior opportunity to raise objections before the proclamation of sale was issued

“if the judgment debtor had been put on notice by the executing Court but had acquiesced, by taking no action before the date of the sale, he would be precluded from assailing its legality or correctness thereafter.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe while setting aside the Madras High Court's decision which set aside the auction sale (made in the Appellant's favour) upon accepting the Respondent judgment-debtor's belated objection against the auction sale.

The judgment debtor raised an objection that the executing court hadn't considered the aspect of whether the part sale of the judgment debtor property could satisfy the decree. This objection was raised belatedly even when he had an opportunity to raise before the proclamation of sale.

The judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar explained that for accepting the belated objection to the auction sale “it would be incumbent upon a judgment debtor or any other interested person who applies for setting aside an execution sale, held thereafter, to satisfy the executing Court that the ground upon which the application was made could not have been taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up.” However, noting that the Respondent-judgment debtor, in this case, having acquiesced to the proceedings and having notice of the sale proclamation, didn't object to the sale proclamation, the Court said the benefit under Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC can't be availed by the judgment debtor.

“In effect, if such a ground could have been taken by that applicant who seeks setting aside of the sale but he failed to do so at the appropriate stage, he would stand barred, by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC, from doing so at a subsequent stage.”, the court said, adding that “having failed to raise a material irregularity in the context of Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a) CPC at the appropriate stage, i.e., with regard to sale of a part of the property being sufficient to satisfy the decree, it is not open to them (judgment debtor) to now raise such a belated plea and blithely place the burden on the executing Court, so as to seek setting aside of a sale held as long back as in the year 2002.”

“we are convinced that not only were the judgment debtors in the case on hand put on notice at every stage during the exercises undertaken by the executing Court to reduce the upset price from one unsuccessful sale to the other, they also participated to an extent and then chose to refrain from doing so. Therefore, they do not have the right to claim that they were not put on notice, though they feebly contended to such effect. The record clearly negates their claim in that regard.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead), through LRs. versus K.J. Prakash Kumar and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1141

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, AOR Mr. Shreyash Kaushal, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Rao Raj Bahadur Singh, Adv. Mr. A. Sai Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gururaj C.B., Adv. Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR