Execution sale proclamations require judicial scrutiny of value and sale mode; failure to do so can vitiate the sale.

In an execution sale, the court must fairly and accurately set out the material particulars relevant to value in the sale proclamation and must apply its own mind rather than mechanically adopt one party's valuation. Failure to consider objections, omit important particulars, or address whether property should be sold separately or in one lot can amount to material irregularity. Where the judgment-debtors show prejudice from that irregularity, substantial injury is established and the sale may be set aside. On these facts, the sale was disturbed only as to the two bungalows and their compound, which were directed to be resold after fresh judicial consideration of the mode of sale and proclamation particulars.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution sale of the two bungalows was vitiated by material irregularity or fraud in the preparation and conduct of the sale proclamation under Order 21, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the judgment-debtors proved substantial injury resulting from the sale.

Issue (i): Whether the execution sale of the two bungalows was vitiated by material irregularity or fraud in the preparation and conduct of the sale proclamation under Order 21, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The proclamation had practically adopted the decree-holders' valuation without fair consideration of the judgment-debtors' objections and without showing that the court had applied its mind to the material particulars relevant to a purchaser. The rule requires the court to specify fairly and accurately the material facts bearing on value, and the court must not mechanically accept one side's estimate. The omission of important particulars and the failure to consider whether the property should be sold separately or in one lot amounted to a material irregularity.

Conclusion: The sale of the two bungalows was vitiated by material irregularity; the allegation of actual fraud was not required to be finally determined.

Issue (ii): Whether the judgment-debtors proved substantial injury resulting from the sale.

Analysis: The separate sales of the Colonelgunj properties yielded a higher aggregate price than the valuation placed on them when sold in one lot, and the circumstances indicated that the two bungalows would likely have fetched a higher price if sold separately. The uncontroverted material placed by the judgment-debtors supported the inference that the irregularity had caused prejudice.

Conclusion: Substantial injury was proved in relation to the sale of the two bungalows.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the two bungalows and their compound, which were ordered to be resold after a fresh judicial consideration of the mode of sale and the particulars to be included in the proclamation, while the challenge to the other properties failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an execution sale, the court must judicially consider the material particulars to be inserted in the sale proclamation and cannot merely adopt one party's valuation without applying its mind; where such failure causes prejudice, the sale may be set aside for material irregularity.

---