CPC, 1908 — Order 21 Rule 90(3) — Bar against raising belated grounds — Scope and effect Order 21 Rule 90(3) creates a statutory bar: any ground which could have been raised before the date of the sale proclamation cannot be raised later in an application to set aside the sale. Held, once the JD (judgment debtor) had notice of the proclamation, upset-price proceedings, repeated reductions, and sale process, but failed to raise the plea that only a part of the property would suffice to satisfy the decree, he is barred from raising it subsequently. High Court erred in ignoring Rule 90(3) despite noting it.

A. CPC, 1908 — Order 21 Rule 90(3) — Bar against raising belated grounds — Scope and effect

Order 21 Rule 90(3) creates a statutory bar: any ground which could have been raised before the date of the sale proclamation cannot be raised later in an application to set aside the sale.
Held, once the JD (judgment debtor) had notice of the proclamation, upset-price proceedings, repeated reductions, and sale process, but failed to raise the plea that only a part of the property would suffice to satisfy the decree, he is barred from raising it subsequently.
High Court erred in ignoring Rule 90(3) despite noting it.

B. Order 21 Rule 66(2)(a), Rule 64 — Obligation of executing court to consider sale of part only

Principle in Ambati Narasayya and Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi affirmed: executing court must examine whether only part of the property needs to be sold.
BUT this obligation does not override the bar under O.21 R.90(3) if JD had notice and failed to raise the objection at the proper time.

C. Execution Sale — When sale becomes void vs voidable

Sale becomes void for total lack of notice (Desh Bandhu Gupta applied).
But in the present case JD was repeatedly served, participated, sought adjournments, filed counters, and then voluntarily abstained — hence no void sale; only a voidable sale, and JD is barred by Rule 90(3).

D. JD’s conduct — Acquiescence — Doctrine of waiver

JD’s participation in multiple rounds of upset price applications, their counters, and later deliberate absence constitute acquiescence.
A party who had full opportunity but remained silent cannot later challenge the sale on grounds available earlier.

E. High Court — Error in setting aside sale after 7 years

High Court erred in treating the alleged non-consideration of partial sale as a jurisdictional defect despite JD’s silence.
Sale was in 2002; challenge allowed in 2009; SC holds such reopening unsustainable.

F. Apex Court held that

High Court order set aside.
Order of executing court (15.10.2004) and appellate court (13.07.2007) restored.
Auction sale of 12.09.2002 upheld.