Letters Patent appeal maintainable against a Rule 90 order, but auction sale stands absent proof of substantial injury.

An order on an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 CPC to set aside an auction sale determines substantive rights of the auction purchaser and judgment-debtor, so it qualifies as a "judgment" under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and a Letters Patent appeal lies. On merits, a sale cannot be set aside for material irregularity unless the applicant also proves substantial injury caused by that irregularity. The alleged valuation report was not safely reliable because it was obtained without notice and opportunity of objection, and there was no other evidence that the property fetched an inadequate price because the adjourned sale notice omitted the hour. The challenge to the sale therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed on an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an auction sale is a "judgment" within Clause 10 of the Letters Patent so as to permit a Letters Patent appeal. (ii) Whether the auction sale was liable to be set aside for material irregularity in not specifying the hour of the adjourned sale and for failure to prove substantial injury caused by that irregularity.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed on an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside an auction sale is a "judgment" within Clause 10 of the Letters Patent so as to permit a Letters Patent appeal.

Analysis: An application under Order XXI, Rule 90 affects substantive rights of both the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor. If allowed, the purchaser is deprived of the right to have the sale confirmed and made absolute under Rule 92. The order therefore determines valuable rights in controversy between the parties and is not a mere procedural step. An order under Rule 90 accordingly falls within the meaning of "judgment" in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

Conclusion: Such an order is a judgment within Clause 10, and a Letters Patent appeal lies.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale was liable to be set aside for material irregularity in not specifying the hour of the adjourned sale and for failure to prove substantial injury caused by that irregularity.

Analysis: Under the amended Rule 90, proof of a material irregularity by itself is insufficient; the applicant must also establish that injury was sustained by reason of that irregularity. The alleged valuation report relied upon to show inadequacy of price was obtained without notice to the respondent and without affording an opportunity of objection, so it could not be safely relied upon. Apart from that report, there was no evidence that the property was worth more than the price fetched or that any inadequacy of price was caused by the omission in the sale proclamation. A grievance that the sale was held at an undervalue on some other basis was not raised below or in the special leave petition.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove substantial injury caused by the alleged irregularity, so the sale was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sale failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the auction sale was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An order under Order XXI, Rule 90 affecting the substantive rights of an auction purchaser and a judgment-debtor is a judgment for Letters Patent purposes, but a sale cannot be set aside for irregularity unless the applicant proves that the irregularity caused substantial injury.

---