Execution sale upset price notice omission is not by itself material irregularity or fraud under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC.

Failure to serve notice of an application to reduce the upset price in an execution sale does not, by itself, amount to material irregularity or fraud under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The upset price in the sale proclamation is not a statutory requirement under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC; it is only an indication of expected bid value and does not independently determine party rights. A judgment-debtor is not entitled, either under Rule 66 or otherwise, to notice of every decree-holder's request for reduction of that price. The sale therefore could not be set aside on that ground, and the challenge to the dismissal of the application failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to serve notice of an application to reduce the upset price fixed in an execution sale amounts to material irregularity or fraud so as to warrant setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The upset price fixed in a sale proclamation is not a statutory requirement under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure Code, and fixation or alteration of that price does not by itself determine the rights of the parties. It operates only as an indication of the likely fetch value for bidders and remains open to challenge if the sale is otherwise vitiated by material irregularity or fraud. Since the judgment-debtor is not entitled, either under Order 21, Rule 66 or independently of it, to notice of every application by the decree-holder seeking reduction of the upset price, omission of such notice does not by itself constitute an irregularity in the publication or conduct of the sale.

Conclusion: The sale could not be set aside on the ground that notice of the application to reduce the upset price was not served. The contention of the appellants failed, and the dismissal of the application was upheld.

---