Execution sale challenges under Order 21 Rule 90 require material irregularity plus substantial injury; undisclosed charge alone is not enough.

Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, a sale can be set aside only if material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale has caused substantial injury. An application is not rejected merely because substantial injury is not expressly pleaded where the pleaded irregularity itself necessarily implies injury. Omission of an existing charge from the sale proclamation under Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e) CPC is a material irregularity, and Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to auction sales, but the omission does not automatically establish substantial injury to the charge-holder. Whether injury is substantial depends on the surrounding facts and the extent of the remaining charged property.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application to set aside an execution sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure could fail for want of an express averment of substantial injury where the asserted material irregularity itself necessarily implied injury. (ii) Whether the omission in the sale proclamation to mention an existing charge under Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, established substantial injury to the charge-holder.

Issue (i): Whether an application to set aside an execution sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure could fail for want of an express averment of substantial injury where the asserted material irregularity itself necessarily implied injury.

Analysis: The proviso to Order 21 Rule 90 requires proof of both a material irregularity or fraud and substantial injury. The application was technically defective because it did not expressly state that substantial injury had been suffered. However, the pleaded irregularity was the failure to mention the pre-existing charge in the proclamation, and the alleged injury flowed directly from that omission. In such a case, the absence of an express recital of injury was treated as too technical a ground for dismissal at the threshold.

Conclusion: The application could not be rejected merely because substantial injury was not expressly pleaded in formal terms.

Issue (ii): Whether the omission in the sale proclamation to mention an existing charge under Order 21 Rule 66(2)(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, established substantial injury to the charge-holder.

Analysis: The proclamation should fairly and accurately specify encumbrances. The omission of the charge was therefore a material irregularity. The Court held that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, despite the definition in Section 5 and the effect of Section 2(d), applies to auction sales and can protect an auction-purchaser against enforcement of an undisclosed charge. But the unenforceability of the charge against the purchaser does not by itself amount to substantial injury in every case. Whether the injury is substantial depends on the surrounding facts, including the number and value of remaining charged properties and the extent of the claimant's enforceable interest. On the facts found by the executing court, the remaining properties were sufficient to satisfy the charge-holder's legitimate claims, so the loss was not substantial.

Conclusion: The omission amounted to a material irregularity, but it did not cause substantial injury to the charge-holder.

Final Conclusion: The sale could not be set aside under Order 21 Rule 90 because the statutory requirement of substantial injury was not satisfied, and the appellant's challenge to the order setting aside the auction sale succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be set aside only when a material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale is shown to have caused substantial injury, and the existence of an undisclosed charge does not ipso facto establish such injury.

---