In a significant ruling strengthening procedural discipline in execution proceedings, the Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court judgment that had invalidated a 2002 auction sale of residential property in Chennai. The Court held that judgment debtors cannot challenge an execution sale on grounds they could have raised earlier but chose not to—invoking the statutory bar under Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The decision comes in the long-running litigation involving the late G.R. Selvaraj, an auction purchaser whose bid of ₹11.03 lakh was accepted in 2002 after multiple failed auction attempts. The dispute stemmed from a money decree obtained by lender Rasheeda Yasin against borrowers Komala Ammal and her son, K.J. Prakash Kumar.
Auction Challenged After 7 Years
After losing successive rounds before the trial court and the appellate court, the judgment debtors approached the Madras High Court, which in 2009 set aside the auction on the ground that the executing court had failed to consider whether only a part of the property could have been sold to satisfy the decree.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the debtors had ample opportunity to raise this objection before the sale proclamation, but failed to do so despite being repeatedly notified of all execution steps, including multiple reductions of upset price.
SC: Objections Must Be Timely—Silence At Earlier Stage Is Fatal
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe stressed that Rule 90(3)—inserted in 1977—prevents judgment debtors from raising at a later stage any ground that could have been raised before the proclamation of sale.
“Having failed to raise a material irregularity at the appropriate stage, the judgment debtors cannot now raise a belated plea… The High Court failed to give effect to the statutory bar under Order XXI Rule 90(3),” the Court held.
The Bench underlined that the debtors were served notice at every crucial stage, participated initially, and then voluntarily chose to remain absent. Therefore, they could not claim lack of notice or procedural violation.
High Court Ruling Reversed; 2004 Trial Court Order Restored
The Supreme Court restored the 2004 order of the IX Assistant Judge, Chennai, and the 2007 judgment of the III Additional Judge, Chennai—both of which had upheld the auction sale. The appeal filed by Selvaraj’s legal heirs was allowed.
Why This Ruling Matters
- Reinforces buyer confidence in auction sales by limiting challenges raised years later.
- Clarifies obligation of judgment debtors to act diligently during execution.
- Affirms statutory bar on belated objections, providing certainty to execution proceedings.
- Distinguishes earlier rulings (e.g., Ambati Narasayya) given before the 1977 amendment inserting Rule 90(3).
G.R. Selvaraj (Dead) through LRs v. K.J. Prakash Kumar & Others, 25-11-2025