https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276167 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. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Nov 2018 13:02:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276167 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276167