Procedural irregularity in attachment and inadequacy of price do not by themselves void a court auction sale

Non-compliance with the procedure for attachment outside jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, so it did not invalidate the attachment before judgment. A court auction sale could not be set aside on the ground of mere inadequacy of price; interference required fraud or material irregularity causing injustice. The document also notes that the challenge to the attachment and sale failed on these points, while the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the respondents' plea based on prior agreements to sell.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-compliance with the procedure under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 invalidated the attachment before judgment, and (ii) whether mere inadequacy of price was sufficient to set aside the court auction sale.

Issue (i): whether non-compliance with the procedure under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 invalidated the attachment before judgment.

Analysis: Attachment before judgment is ordered under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Rule 7 directs that it be made in the manner provided for attachment in execution. Section 136 prescribes the procedure where the property lies outside the jurisdiction of the Court issuing the order. The omission to send the order through the District Court was treated as a defect in procedure, not as a defect going to jurisdiction. The statutory scheme showed no basis for treating such non-compliance as rendering the attachment void, particularly when the source of power remained the order under Order XXXVIII Rule 5.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 136 did not invalidate the attachment before judgment and the High Court was wrong on that point.

Issue (ii): whether mere inadequacy of price was sufficient to set aside the court auction sale.

Analysis: A court sale can be interfered with only on established grounds such as fraud or material irregularity causing injustice. Mere inadequacy of price, without such accompanying grounds, is not enough to upset the auction sale.

Conclusion: Mere inadequacy of price was not a valid ground to set aside the court auction sale.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment and auction sale failed on the issues decided, but the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the respondents' plea based on the prior agreements to sell.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes only the mode for effecting attachment outside jurisdiction, non-compliance with that mode is a procedural irregularity unless the statute expressly makes it fatal; and a court sale cannot be set aside merely for inadequacy of price without fraud or material irregularity causing injustice.

---