A court sale cannot be set aside under O.XXI R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure on grounds of inadequate price or procedural irregularity if the applicant failed to raise such objections during the settlement of the sale proclamation as mandated by O.XXI R.66(2)(a) and R.90(3).

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellant filed an application under Order XXI Rule

90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the sale. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Irinjalakuda dismissed the said application.

2. The appellant challenges the sale mainly on the ground that the value of the property is much higher than the upset price fixed by the court and therefore, even the sale of a portion of the property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. It is further contended that the sale proclamation was not affixed on the property and that there was no customary beating of drums at the time of proclamation. According to the appellant, the property lies only 20 metres away from the main road and would fetch a price of Rs.10,00,000/- per cent.

3. After considering the contentions advanced by both sides, the execution court dismissed the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the sale, finding that the appellant had failed to substantiate the contention that the property would have fetched a substantially higher price. The court held that such a challenge could not be entertained, particularly when the appellant had not objected to the draft sale proclamation. The court further found that the proclamation had been duly published after complying with the essential formalities.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.

5. Since the appellant did not appear in the execution proceedings, he was initially set ex parte. Though he later filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, the same was not entertained by the court as it was barred by limitation. It is evident from the records that the execution court fixed the upset price of the property at Rs.1,12,30,560/- and posted the case to 30.11.2024 and 19.12.2024 for sale. As there were no bidders, the sale did not materialise. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent, the court reduced the upset price to Rs.95,00,000/-. Subsequently, on 31.01.2025, the decree holder, with the permission of the court, purchased the property for Rs.97,00,100/-. It was at this stage that the appellant filed the application to set aside the sale, raising the aforesaid contentions.

6. It is relevant to note that the appellant has not produced any material to substantiate the contention that the sale of a portion of the property would have been sufficient to satisfy the decree debt. It is not in dispute that the fair value fixed by the Government for the property in question is Rs.5,28,000/- per Are. The execution court observed in the impugned order that, although the decree holder had valued the entire property at Rs.25,00,000/-, the court fixed the upset price at three times the fair value of the property. Though it was contended that the sale proclamation had not been duly published, the execution court found otherwise, after examining the Process Server who carried out the publication of the sale.

7. It is settled law that mere inadequacy of the sale price is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for setting aside a court sale. Further, since the appellant could have raised the aforesaid objections at an earlier stage, namely, when the draft sale proclamation was published, there is no justification for entertaining the challenge against the sale on the ground of inadequacy of the sale price at this stage. In Selvaraj G. R. (Dead), through LRs. v. K. J. Prakash Kumar (2025 KHC 6965), the Apex Court declared the law in this regard as follows:

“18. However, on the facts obtaining presently, 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 b