Order XXI Rule 84 CPC permits a same-day resale after default, and a sale is not set aside without proved material irregularity.

Order XXI Rule 84 CPC was construed to require resale "forthwith" in the sense of immediate action without unnecessary delay, but not to prohibit all practical flexibility. A resale held on the same day as an abortive auction was therefore not invalid merely for that reason, if conducted as expeditiously as the circumstances allowed. On the separate challenge under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC, no material irregularity in publishing or conducting the resale was proved; the factual findings that the earlier bid was not shown to be a genuine offer and that the resale was properly conducted were left undisturbed. The challenge to the sale accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a resale after default in depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money had to be postponed to another day or could be held on the same day; (ii) Whether the resale was liable to be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for material irregularity in publishing or conducting it.

Issue (i): Whether, under Order XXI Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a resale after default in depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money had to be postponed to another day or could be held on the same day.

Analysis: The word "forthwith" in Order XXI Rule 84 was construed as meaning immediately or without unnecessary delay, but not as excluding all flexibility. The proper meaning depended on the facts and circumstances of the case, and the Court accepted that a resale may validly take place as expeditiously as circumstances permit. A same-day resale was therefore not illegal merely because it followed the abortive sale on the same day.

Conclusion: A same-day resale was permissible and was not contrary to Order XXI Rule 84.

Issue (ii): Whether the resale was liable to be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for material irregularity in publishing or conducting it.

Analysis: No material irregularity was shown. The evidence did not establish that the earlier highest bid was a genuine offer, and the Courts below had found on the facts that the resale was properly conducted. In revision, that factual finding did not warrant disturbance.

Conclusion: The challenge under Order XXI Rule 90 failed and the sale was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed on merits, as the resale was held to be legally valid and no material irregularity was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "forthwith" in Order XXI Rule 84 means without unnecessary delay and is to be applied according to the circumstances, so a resale held immediately after an abortive sale is not invalid merely because it occurs on the same day.

---