A court cannot set aside an auction sale on the ground of inadequacy of price unless it is satisfied that the judgment debtor has sustained substantial injury by reason of such inadequacy and that the inadequacy was caused by a material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale.

( 1 ) AS a consequence of filing of Original Suit No. 452 of 1967, Smt. Indra Rani (respondent No. 3), hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder, obtained a money-decree against Sri Nepal Singh, hereinafter referred to as the judgement-debtor. Vide Execution Case No. 47 of 1971 she put the said decree in execution by attachment and sale of a house situate in the town of Goverdhan in Mohalla Danghat in the district of Mathura. The first auction was to be held on 6th May, 1972. Before the same could be held, the judgement-debtor filed an application dated 4th May, 1972 stating therein that he is prepared to pay the entire decretal amount within a period of two months and in case he failed to do so, the attached property may be sold. The judgement-debtor could not pay the decretal amount within the aforesaid time and, therefore, he moved another application dated 5th March, 1973 along with an undertaking that in case he fails to pay the amount within the time set out by the court, the judgement-debtor waives his right of having a fresh proclamation. The said application was also granted by the execution court but the judgement-debtor again failed to pay the decretal amount within the prescribed time. Consequently the sale took place on 20th December, 1976 in favour of Sri Vidya Bhan Prakash, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE property covered an area of 35 X 20 and was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- at the said auction sale. Admittedly the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by the petitioner in time. A copy of the Fard Nilam has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-1 to the writ petition and a copy of the objection dated 17th January, 1977 filed by the judgement-debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said auction sale has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The parties led oral evidence in regard to the objection. The main ground set out in the aforesaid objection dated 17th January, 1977 was that in fact, no auction had taken place on 20th December, 1976 as was stated to have been done and that the bid was accepted for inadequate price. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the oral evidence led in that regard by the parties, the execution court vide its order dated 14th September, 1979 rejected the objection of the judgement-debtor filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court held that since the judgement-debtor had himself waived his rights regarding issue of a fresh proclamation, he cannot raise any objection in regard to the same. The court also held that the theory set up by the judgement-debtor that no auction had taken place was incorrect and that the said objection is designed to delay the realisation of the decretal amount on one ground or the other and that in the past the judgement-debtor had succeeded in getting the auction postponed on one ground or the other. The court held that in fact the auction had taken place in accordance with law and that there has been neither any material irregularity nor any fraud in publishing or conducting the sale nor there has been any substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the execution court, the judgement-debtor filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 122 of 1979 which was ultimately allowed by the Second Additional District Judge, Mathura vide his judgement dated 13th May, 1981. The learned Additional District Judge did not agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the judgement-debtor that no auction sale was made on the spot and the people present to participate in the bids were misinformed. Although the learned Additional District Judge omitted to take into account the aforesaid earlier undertaking of the judgement-debtor as mentioned by the trial court in its order yet on a consideration of the record and after hearing learned counsel for the partie