https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280629 Section 104(2) did not bar the special appeal because the court's special appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent and Rules of Court was preserved; the preliminary objection was rejected. Clause (b) of the proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 applied to applications made after its commencement, even in pending execution matters, because the right to challenge a sale arises only after the auction sale, and the deposit or security requirement was upheld as procedural and within the rule-making power. The applicant could object to the sale, but setting it aside required proof of substantial injury caused by irregularity or fraud. As no substantial injury was established, the challenge to the auction sale failed. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 11:46:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280629 Section 104(2) did not bar the special appeal because the court's special appellate jurisdiction under the Letters Patent and Rules of Court was preserved; the preliminary objection was rejected. Clause (b) of the proviso to Order XXI Rule 90 applied to applications made after its commencement, even in pending execution matters, because the right to challenge a sale arises only after the auction sale, and the deposit or security requirement was upheld as procedural and within the rule-making power. The applicant could object to the sale, but setting it aside required proof of substantial injury caused by irregularity or fraud. As no substantial injury was established, the challenge to the auction sale failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280629