The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of procedural rules, such as Order XXI, Rule 69(2), must result in substantial injury to warrant setting aside a sale under Rule 90. The court emphasized the need for substantial injury and proper adherence to the prescribed procedure for challenging a sale.

1. The judgment debtors in O.S.No.86 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore are the revision petitioners.

2. The revision is filed to set aside the order of sale held in pursuance of E.P.No.130 of 2000 on the ground that provision sunder Order XXI, Rule 67 were not complied with and therefore, the sale is a nullity.

3. It is submitted by Mr.Margabandhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property was brought to sale at the instance of the decree holder/respondents herein on 16.11.2005, sale proclamation was settled and thereafter, the sale was adjourned to various dates and finally, the sale was conducted on 7.9.2009 and while conducting the sale on 7.9.2009, there was violation of provisions of Order XXI Rule 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the sale is a nullity and therefore, it must be set aside.

4. The learned counsel Mr.Margabandhu further submitted that after the settlement of proclamation on 16.11.2005, the sale was not held immediately. As per Order XXI, Rule 69(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a sale is adjourned for a longer period than thirty days, a fresh proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 67 shall be made unless the judgment debtor consents to waive it. In this case, admittedly, the sale proclamation was made on 16.11.2005 and the sale was held on 7.9.2009 and therefore, it is beyond the period of thirty days as per Order XXI, Rule 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure and without issuing fresh proclamation under Rule 67, the court below ought not have ordered sale and therefore, there is a clear violation of the principles of law and therefore, the sale is a nullity. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions in N.NATARAJA NADAR v. NOOR AHMED AND ANOTHER (AIR 1989 MADRAS 274) and MAHAKAL AUTOMOBILES v. KISHAN SWAROOP SHARMA ((2008) 13 SCC 113).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present revision is not maintainable and sale was conducted on 7.9.2009 and on 9.9.2009, it was recorded by the court and confirmed by the court on 8.12.2009. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no violation of Order XXI, Rule 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even assuming that there is a violation, unless the judgment debtor is able to prove that the violation amounts to material irregularity and substantial injury by reason of the material irregularity, the sale cannot be set aside. Further, Even in that event, he has to file application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale and in the absence of any such application, it is not open to the judgment debtor to set aside the sale by filing revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the judgment debtors filed E.A.No.184 of 2009 under Order XX1 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale and that was also dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2009 and only thereafter the sale was confirmed and hence, the revision is not maintainable.

6. To appreciate the contention of the parties, we will have to see the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 69 and Rule 90. Order XXI Rule 69 reads as follows:-

"69. Adjournment or stoppage of sale (1) The Court may, in its discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour, and the officer conducting any such sale may in his discretion adjourn the sale, recording his reasons for such adjournment:

Provided that, where the sale is made in, or within the precincts of the Court-house, no such adjournment shall be made without the leave of the Court.

(2) Where a sale is adjourned under sub-rule (1) for a longer period than thirty days, a fresh proclamation under Rule 67 shall be made, unless the judgment-debtor consents to waive it.

(3) Every sale shall be stopped if, before the lot is knocked down, the debt and costs (including the costs of the sale) are tendered to the officer conducting the sale, or proof is given to his satisfaction th