https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280630 The court held that the attachment of the property by the Civil Judge, Lucknow, without the order being routed through the District Court was invalid. Despite the invalid attachment, the sale of the property was considered valid under Section 51(b) of the Code, as the absence of attachment prior to the sale was deemed a material irregularity but not rendering the sale void unless substantial injury was caused. The court allowed the First Appeal From Order, remanding the objection under Rule 90 for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law, while dismissing the First Execution Appeal due to the appellants' failure to stay the sale during their objection. en-us Tue, 18 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 11:56:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280630 The court held that the attachment of the property by the Civil Judge, Lucknow, without the order being routed through the District Court was invalid. Despite the invalid attachment, the sale of the property was considered valid under Section 51(b) of the Code, as the absence of attachment prior to the sale was deemed a material irregularity but not rendering the sale void unless substantial injury was caused. The court allowed the First Appeal From Order, remanding the objection under Rule 90 for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law, while dismissing the First Execution Appeal due to the appellants' failure to stay the sale during their objection. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280630