JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J.:—This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 24 March, 1973 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The High Court held that the application of the appellants, the judgment debtors is defective and not maintainable and the Court has no power to set aside the sale unless facts are alleged by the applicant and proved by him to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity.

3. The respondents are the decree-holders. Pursuant to the decree there was an order for attachment and sale of the house property of the appellants. The sale took place on 7 June 1960.

4. The appellants filed an application on 7 July, 1960 under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. On 18 November, 1966 the application was dismissed by the Munsif. On 22 April, 1972 the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal filed by the judgment debtors and set aside the sale. The High Court pursuant to the revision petition presented by the auction purchaser set aside the order of the Subordinate Court on the ground that the application of the appellants under Order XXI was defective and no maintainable.

5. The application was in seven paragraphs. The first two paragraphs contained the description of the petitioners and the respondents. In the third paragraph the judgment debtors alleged that the properties were purchased by the 738 husband of the decree-holder. In the fourth paragraph the judgment debtors alleged that the sale notices were deliberately suppressed from the knowledge of the judgment debtors. It is also alleged that the properties were undervalued and were sold in favour of the husband who was the nominee of the decree-holder. In paragraph 5 it was alleged that the correct assessments had not been shown. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is alleged that the sale is illegal for material irregularities and for suppression of all notices to the petitioners as the respondents 1 and 2 colluded together and practised fraud upon the petitioners. In paragraph 7 the judgment debtors prayed for setting aside the sale.

6. The Munsif by his order dated 18 November, 1966 noticed the contentions which arose for consideration. Those were as follows. First, whether the judgment debtors had no knowledge of the attachment or subsequent sale proceedings. Second, whether the decree-holder practised fraud upon the judgment debtors. Third, whether the sale was illegal. Fourth, whether the judgment debtors sustained any substantial injury.

7. The sale was to be held on 6 June, 1960. That was a public holiday on account of Bakrid. There was a gazette notification to that effect. Because the date of sale was a public holiday, the sale was held on the next day 7 June, 1960. The Munsif held that when the sale is held on a date different from that notified without an order of adjournment and a further proclamation of sale it would amount only to an irregularity and the remedy would be to apply to set aside the sale on proof of substantial injury. The Munsif held that there was no circumstance to make the sale illegal or invalid.

8. The Munsif further held that the attachment was effective from 17 December, 1959. One of the judgment debtors who was the eldest brother was present at the time of attachment. The youngest brother alleged that he was not pulling on well with the family members because he married a girl of another caste. The Munsif held that to be an after-thought because there was no evidence of any discord between the brothers. The Munsif held that the judgment debtors were living together in the house attached and that they had knowledge of the attachment.

9. With regard to the sale notice the Munsif held that the judgment debtors had knowledge of the attachment and sale and also held that no fraud was practised.

10. With regard to the question of substantial injury the Munsif held that the allegation in the petition that the property was worth more than