Execution sale irregularity does not justify setting aside the sale unless substantial injury is proved.

Permission to decree-holders to bid in an execution sale without notice to the judgment-debtor was treated as a procedural irregularity, especially where the upset price was reduced, but relief under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure remained dependent on proof of substantial injury. The Court noted that notice was necessary in the circumstances, yet the challenge failed because no facts showed that the irregularity in granting bidding permission had caused prejudice sufficient to vitiate the sale. The execution sale was therefore not set aside, as procedural lapse alone did not justify interference without demonstrated substantial injury.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court auction sale could be set aside under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of irregularity in granting permission to decree-holders to bid under Order 21, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without notice to the judgment-debtor, and whether such irregularity caused substantial injury.

Analysis: The Court accepted that notice to the judgment-debtor before granting permission under Order 21, Rule 72 was necessary in the circumstances, particularly where the upset price was reduced. However, an application under Order 21, Rule 90 could succeed only if the applicant also established that the irregularity or illegality in conducting the sale had caused substantial injury. On the facts found, the Court was unable to identify any circumstances showing that the absence of notice and the consequent permission to bid had produced such injury as would justify interference with the sale.

Conclusion: The sale was not vitiated so as to warrant relief under Order 21, Rule 90, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the execution-sale challenge stood confirmed because no substantial injury was proved despite the alleged procedural irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale in execution cannot be set aside merely for a procedural irregularity unless the applicant also proves substantial injury caused by that irregularity.

---