https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196891 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. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:50:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196891 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196891