The application to set aside a sale on the ground of inadequate sale value is barred if the objection could have been raised before the date of the sale proclamation, and the court will consider the evidence on record to determine the adequacy of the sale price.

The judgment-debtor in execution of a money decree is the revision petitioner. The revision is against the judgment of the Sub Court, Ernakulam in C.M.A.24/90 confirming the order of the executing court on an application under O.XXI R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The petitioner filed the said application seeking to set aside the sale conducted on 4-7-1984 on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and on inadequate sale price. The first respondent is the decree-holder and the second respondent is the auction-purchaser. The Munsiffs Court after conducting inquiry into the aforesaid grounds dismissed the application. In appeal, while confirming the said order, the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with all findings of the Munsiffs Court.

2. The main question to be decided in this revision is whether the application under R.90 of O.XXI of the Code on the ground of inadequate sale value is barred in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) thereof. R.90 of O.XXI reads thus:

90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud-

(1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it.

(2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud.

(3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up.

Explanation.-The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.

3. The persons who are entitled to apply under sub-rule (1) to set aside the sale are (i) decree-holder, (ii) purchaser, (iii) any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, and (iv) any person whose interests are affected by the sale. This provision can be invoked only in a case where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree. Mere absence of attachment or defect thereof by itself is not a ground for seeking to set aside the sale in view of the Explanation to the rule. The mode of publishing the sale proclamation is prescribed in R.67. R.68 deals with time for sale. R.69 provides for adjournment or stoppage of sale. Rules 82 to 89 prescribe procedure for the conduct of sale on different situations. The material irregularity or fraud contemplated in R.90 relates to the procedure for publishing the sale proclamation and conducting the sale subsequent to the drawing up of the sale proclamation under R.66. The applicability of sub-rule (1) of R.90 is dependent on the condition prescribed in sub-rule (2) thereof. The condition is that the court must be satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. Under sub-rule (3) the application for setting aside the sale cannot be made on the ground, which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. There is an absolute bar for entertaining such application under this sub-rule on the aforesaid grounds. That would indicate that the application to set aside the sale under R.90 will be maintainable only on the limited ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale.

4. One of the grounds alleged for setting aside the sale in the present case is the inadequacy of the sale price shown in the proclamation of