TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the auction sale of immovable property was liable to be set aside for alleged irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the respondent had established substantial injury so as to justify setting aside the sale.
Issue (i): Whether the auction sale of immovable property was liable to be set aside for alleged irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: Order XXI Rule 90 permits setting aside a court sale only on proof of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. The rule is supplemented by the condition that the sale cannot be upset unless the applicant also satisfies the Court that substantial injury has been caused by such irregularity or fraud. A bare allegation of collusion or inadequate publicity is insufficient. The proclamation procedure under Order XXI Rule 67(1) read with Order XXI Rule 54(2) was followed, and the trial court had not directed newspaper publication. The notice was pasted on the property and pamphlets were distributed locally, which met the prescribed mode of publication.
Conclusion: The sale was not shown to suffer from any material irregularity or fraud, and it could not be set aside on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondent had established substantial injury so as to justify setting aside the sale.
Analysis: To invoke Order XXI Rule 90 successfully, it was necessary to prove that the alleged irregularity or fraud caused substantial injury. The respondent did not produce reliable material showing that the property would have fetched a higher price or that the upset price was wrongly fixed. The asserted higher offer was not substantiated by the alleged purchaser, despite repeated opportunities. The appellant had already deposited the bid amount, which was above the market value reflected in the material before the Court. The alleged absence of notice under the Partition Act was held to be immaterial on the facts.
Conclusion: Substantial injury was not proved, so the sale could not be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The auction sale was validly confirmed, and the order setting it aside was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A court sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be set aside only when material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale is specifically pleaded and proved, and it is further shown that such irregularity or fraud caused substantial injury.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
