Case Summary: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs v. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Ors. (2025)| Late Objections to Auction Sale Prohibited Under Rule 90(3) CPC
It was clarified that when notice exists, and no objections are raised before the sale, Rule 90(3) CPC prevents setting aside the auction later.;
This case revolves around the legality and sustainability of an execution sale of immovable property, challenged years after completion. The central question was whether Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC, inserted by the 1976 amendment, bars judgment-debtors from raising objections at a belated stage when such objections could have been raised earlier before the proclamation of sale.
The Supreme Court, reversing the Madras High Court judgment dated 10.02.2009, held that once the judgment-debtors had notice of execution proceedings and failed to raise objections before the sale proclamation was drawn, they cannot challenge the auction sale years later. The Court restored the sale in favour of the auction purchaser, G.R. Selvaraj.
Title of the Case: G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs v. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1353
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar & Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: 25 November 2025
Background of the Dispute
1. Origin of the Suit
- In O.S. No. 9158 of 1995, Rasheeda Yasin sued Komala Ammal and her son K.J. Prakash Kumar for recovery of ₹3,75,000 with interest and costs.
- The basis of the claim was a loan of ₹2,00,000 taken on 02.03.1992, jointly by the defendants with K. Jagannathan.
- The suit was decreed ex parte on 16.04.1997, directing payment of the full amount with 18% p.a. interest.
2. Execution Proceedings
- Execution Petition No.199/1998 sought attachment and sale of property at Door No.90, Astabujam Road, Choolai, Chennai (2120 sq ft).
- Decretal amount then stood at ₹4,98,145.50.
- The property was attached and proclaimed for auction multiple times between 1999–2002 due to a lack of bidders.
3. Upset Price Reductions (A Key Element in Later Challenge)
| Date | Upset Price | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 05.01.2000 | ₹16,25,000 | No bidders |
| 21.09.2000 | Reduced to ₹14,75,000 | No bids |
| 08.11.2001 | Reduced to ₹12,00,000 | No bids |
| 11.07.2002 | Reduced to ₹11,00,000 | Final Auction Held |
Judgment-debtors participated initially, filed counters, sought time, but later remained absent when prices were reduced.
4. Final Auction and Sale Certificate
- Auction date: 12.09.2002
- Successful bidder: G.R. Selvaraj (Appellant)
- Amount: ₹11,03,000
- Sale certificate issued on 10.01.2003
- Sale proceeds released to the decree-holder.
Challenge Under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC
After completion of sale, E.A. No. 475/2002 was filed by judgment-debtors to set aside sale, alleging:
- Upset price was reduced without notice
- Sale was not held at property site
- Violation of Order XXI Rule 66 CPC
However, these objections were not taken prior to proclamation, attracting the bar of Order XXI Rule 90(3).
Findings of Lower Courts
| Forum | Result |
|---|---|
| Executing Court (15.10.2004) | Application dismissed |
| C.M.A. 17/2005 (13.07.2007) | Dismissed with costs |
| CRP 2574/2007 (10.02.2009 – High Court) | Allowed — sale invalidated |
The High Court held the sale invalid because the Court had not considered the partial sale of property to satisfy decree, as required under Order XXI Rule 66(2)(a) CPC.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
- Whether judgment-debtors can invoke Order XXI Rule 90 after auction when they could have raised objections before the sale proclamation was settled?
Supreme Court's Analysis
Nature and Effect of Order XXI Rule 90(3)
The Court emphasised that Rule 90(3) was inserted to ensure the finality of auction sales, preventing judgment debtors from raising stale objections.
No application to set aside a sale shall be entertained on grounds which could have been raised before proclamation of sale.
This creates a form of statutory estoppel against late objections.
Previous Precedents Considered
| Case | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao (1989) | Sale beyond needed extent illegal |
| Takkaseela Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma (1977) | Partial sale obligation under Rule 64 |
| Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand (1994) | Rule 90(3) applies where notice was given |
However, the two earlier precedents dealt with the pre-amendment CPC, which lacked the 90(3) restriction.
Court’s Key Observations
- Judgment-debtors were aware of proceedings & even participated.
- They had adequate opportunity to challenge upset price reduction, valuation, partial sale, but never did so.
- High Court wrongly ignored the mandatory bar under Rule 90(3).
- Execution sale occurred two decades earlier—reopening would cause serious prejudice to the auction-purchaser.
The Court stressed:
If notice was served and debtor remained silent, Rule 90(3) prohibits later challenge.
Participation and Acquiescence
The Court found, factually:
- Notices were issued at every stage of price reduction
- Debtors attended some hearings and filed counters
- Their later absence was voluntary — they chose not to contest
- Therefore, the sale could not be set aside after 7 years.
This illustrated waiver through inaction.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the orders of the executing & appellate courts.
| Party | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Auction Purchaser (Appellant) | Sale Restored |
| Judgment Debtors | Barred by O21 R90(3) from challenge |
| High Court Order | Reversed |
No order for costs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judgment in G.R. Selvaraj v. K.J. Prakash Kumar makes a decisive contribution to execution jurisprudence under the CPC. The Court highlighted that execution proceedings cannot be permitted to linger endlessly on belated technical objections. Where judgment-debtors had prior notice of sale, participated partly, and yet failed to raise objections before proclamation, the statutory bar under Order XXI Rule 90(3) becomes absolute.
The High Court erred in overlooking this mandate. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the debtor’s own silence cannot later be used to invalidate auction proceedings. The ruling ensures security of judicial sales, respects the participation of bona fide auction purchasers, reinforces the finality of execution, and prevents procedural abuse. It stands as a precedent that execution sales must not be casually disturbed unless the absence of notice is clearly shown.
This decision preserves the integrity of execution proceedings and strengthens confidence in auction sales conducted under judicial authority.
Click Here to Read the Official Judgment