Mere inadequacy of price is not enough to set aside an auction sale; the petitioner must establish a causal connection between the inadequacy of price and material irregularity or fraud by direct or substantial evidence.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the judgment-debtor petitioner against an appellate order refusing to set aside an auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, --the judgment being one of affirmance.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is one of the judgment-debtors and it is alleged in his petition under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the disputed property was not properly described in the sale proclamation which was fraudulently suppressed and, on account of such suppression, the property has been sold at an inadequately low price resulting in substantial injuries to the petitioner. The opposite party No. 1 is the auction-purchaser and the opposite party No. 2 is the decree-holder. Both of them opposed this application.

( 3 ) THE executing court dismissed the application on the view that none of the grounds taken were proved. On a finding that at the time of the issue of the sale proclamation both parties gave their own valuation as to the property sold and according to the proviso to cl. (e), sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure the sale proclamation was published with both the valuations namely, Rs. 5000/- by the decree-holder and Rs. 25000/- by the judgment-debtor and, accordingly, the sale proclamation was duly served and not suppressed. It was further found that the property was sufficiently described with all the necessary details and the omission to mention in the sale proclamation the number of rooms was not at all material nor it could be held that the said defect misled the prospective buyers in any way and the property was not sold at an inadequately low price.

( 4 ) ON appeal the appellate court agreed with the findings of the executing court on the view that the petitioner failed to prove the actual market value of the property on proper and sufficient evidence and, in any event, the price of Rs. 8000/- at which the property was sold was not "a grossly inadequate price. " snd, therefore, did not constitute any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. The correctness of this decision has been challenged before us in the instant revision case.

( 5 ) THE main grievance, as pressed by Mr. Monomohan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the judgment-debtor-appel-lant-petitioner is that the value of the disputed property at the material time would be Rs. 25,000/- and there is no doubt that Rs. 8,000/- at which the property was sold was 'shockingly a low price' and this by itself would constitute a fraud on the part of the decree-holder in publishing or conducting the sale. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on several decisions of this Court namely, Sisir Kumar Mukheriee v. Kanyalal Jhewar; (1967) 71 Cal WN 649, Prabodh Chandra Mukherjee v. Pashupati Mukher-jee; (1964) 67 Cal WN 1072. Bipin Behart Baidya v. Surya Kanta Jana and Manmatha Nath Chakravorty v. Sachindra Kumar Chakravorty. All these decisions, it will appear, are mainly dependent upon the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee, reported in ILR 1945 Mad 601 = (AIR 1945 PC 67) Marudanayagam Pillai v. Manickavasakam Chettiar and also the case reported in (1875) 25 Ind App 146 (PC), Sadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar. The principle indicated in these decisions is unopposed. But all these decisions are distinguishable from the instant case before us on facts. We are not impressed with the arguments of Mr. Mukherjee that the sale price of Rs. 8,000/- as against Rs. 25000/- given by the judgment-debtor In the sale proclamation is such an inadequate price as to constitute fraud on the part of the decree-holder in collusion with the auction-purchaser or a fraud committed on the Court. Both the courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact, we think rightly, that the price of Rs. 8,000/-in respect of the disputed properties was not an inadequate price--"not to speak of a grossly inadequate price. Moreover, we fully agree, as has been held by the appe