ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants in this appeal are decree-holders in whose favour a money decree was passed in a suit filed by them against the respondent. In execution of the said decree, the property of the respondent was sold by auction on 4-11-1978. It was purchased by the appellants for a sum of Rs 7610. The respondent judgment-debtor filed an application for setting aside the said sale on the ground of inadequacy of valuation and that sufficient opportunity was not given to the judgment-debtor to deposit the decretal amount. The said application was rejected by the executing court by order dated 14-7- 1994. It was held that there was no material irregularity in the sale inasmuch as the judgment-debtor was heard before setting the proclamation of sale. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of the executing court was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge by judgment dated 31-3-1995. The respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment. The High Court has found : "On a consideration of the orders of the courts below, the relevant materials brought to my notice and the contentions raised before me, I am satisfied that no grounds are made out for interfering with the findings of the courts below that the sale was in no way vitiated by any material irregularity or fraud. As regards the value of the property also, on the material available, it cannot be stated that the price fetched was so unreasonable or so shockingly low as to disturb the conscience of the Court. On the basis of the material on record, the courts below have found that the price fetched at the auction was reasonable. In my view, the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to that conclusion. I am also of the view that the judgment- debtor has failed to show that the price fetched at the auction was unreasonably low or was in fact low. I have therefore no hesitation in overruling the contention of learned counsel for the judgment-debtor in this regard. In other words, on the merits, I find no justification for interfering with the orders of the courts below."

3. After arriving at this conclusion, the High Court has proceeded on the basis that in the present case the property was purchased in auction by the decree-holders and purchase (sic) the decree-holder generally has been dealt with differently from a case where a purchaser is a stranger and that courts have shown some leniency in the judgment-debtor when the purchaser is the decree-holder himself. Feeling inclined to show some indulgence to the judgment-debtor, the High Court has directed that the sale be set aside on condition that the respondent should deposit a sum of Rs 7620 with interest thereon 12% per annum from 4-11-1978 till the date of the deposit and a further sum of Rs 6000 as compensation to the legal representatives of the decree-holders. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the a appellant decree-holders have filed this appeal.

4. Shri P. S. Poti, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that having found that there was no material irregularity in the sale, the High Court was in error in setting aside the sale merely because the decree-holders are the purchasers of the property. We find considerable force in this submission. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court that there was no material irregularity in the sale and the price was also not low, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the sale on the sole consideration that property had been purchased by the decree-holders. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High Court dated 6-6-1995 setting aside the sale of the property in favour of the appellants is set aside and the judgment of the courts below are restored. No orders as to costs.