https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187835 Non-compliance with the procedure for attachment outside jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, so it did not invalidate the attachment before judgment. A court auction sale could not be set aside on the ground of mere inadequacy of price; interference required fraud or material irregularity causing injustice. The document also notes that the challenge to the attachment and sale failed on these points, while the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the respondents' plea based on prior agreements to sell. en-us Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2016 17:23:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187835 Non-compliance with the procedure for attachment outside jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, so it did not invalidate the attachment before judgment. A court auction sale could not be set aside on the ground of mere inadequacy of price; interference required fraud or material irregularity causing injustice. The document also notes that the challenge to the attachment and sale failed on these points, while the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the respondents' plea based on prior agreements to sell. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187835