In order to set aside an auction sale under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C., the judgment debtor must prove material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale and substantial injury resulting from such irregularity or fraud.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 21-5-1976 passed by I Additional Civil Judge, kanpur allowing the objection of the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. and setting aside the auction sale with respect to House No. 36/47 Ram Mohan ka Hata and House no, 128/142 Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur,

( 2 ) ONE Ram Dutt Kajriwal brought a suit (Suit No. 1055 of 1952) against Purshottam Das Poddar at Calcutta and obtained an ex parte decree against him for Rs. 56,975 on 20-3-1952. The decree-holder got his decree transferred to the Court of I Civil Judge, Kanpur for execution. There he gave an application and prayed for attachment of three houses, namely, 36/47, Ram mohan Ka Hata, 28/142 and 28/136 Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur. In this case we are not concerned with the last mentioned house. The first two houses were attached by the Court Amin on 26-3-53. The judgment-debtor Purshottam Das Poddar filed an objection against the attachment under Order 21, Rule 54 C. P. C. and at the same time requested the Court to stay the sale of the attached houses. The Court, however, did not stay the same, instead it passed an order that the confirmation of the sale would not be done till further orders,

( 3 ) ON 16-9-1955 the two attached houses were auctioned by the approved auctioneers, namely, m/s. Sohan Lal and Sons. House No. 28/142, Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur was purchased by Ram krishan Kapoor for Rs. 13,250 while house No. 36/47, Ram Mohan Ka Hata was purchased by jagmohan Lal, Kanodiya for Rs. 23,300. Thereafter, an objection was filed by the judgment-debtor on 16-10-1955 under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. The hearing of this objection was adjourned on several dates. On 13-4-1957 the judgment-debtor filed an application before the Civil Judge mentioning therein that he hoped to get better purchasers for the two houses and they would be willing to pay Rs. 28,000 for house No. 36/47, Ram Moham Ka Hata and Rs. 16,000 for house No. 28/142, Dwarikadhish Road, Kanpur. He requested the Court to give him time till 28th May, 1957 to produce these purchasers. And in case he failed to produce such purchasers his objection under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. may be dismissed and the sales made in favour of the auction-purchasers be confirmed. The Court gave the judgment-debtor time till 28-5-1957 to bring the purchasers as suggested by him and to get full purchase money deposited by them in Court by that date. In default his objection under Order 21, Rule 90 C. P. C. was to stand dismissed. On 27-5-1957 one Satya Narain made an application in the Court of Civil Judge accompanied by a tender for a sum of Rs. 16,000 stating therein that he was willing to purchase house No. 28/142, Dwarikadhish Road for Rs. 16,000. The Civil Judge ordered that he must deposit Rs. 16,000 by 28-5-1957 and listed the application for orders on 29-5-1957. On 28-5-1957 one Um Shanker Shukla also filed an application accompanied by a tender for a sum of Rs. 28,000 stating therein that he was willing to purchase house No. 36/47, Ram Mohan Ka hata for Rs. 28,000. On that application also the Civil Judge ordered that money must be deposited by 28-5-1957 and his application be listed for orders on 29-5-1957. The tender filed by satya Narain was signed by the Court on 27-5-1957 and the tender filed by Uma Shanker Shukla was signed on 28-5-1957. These tenders were returned to Satya Narain and Uma Shanker Shukla by the office of the Court on 28-5-1957. Thereafter, on the same day these persons presented those tenders to the Treasury Officer, On 29-5-1957 the tender submitted by Satya Narain was returned with an endorsement that an entry of the amount of tender in words was wanting. The tender submitted by Uma Shanker Shukla was returned with an endorsement that it was valid for payment up to 30-5-1957, As both Satya Narain and Uma Shanker Shukla failed to deposit money by 28-5-1957 the Court confirmed the sales in favour of the auction-purchasers on 29-5-1