A PADMANABHAN NADAR Vs. T THANKA NADACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of an application to set aside a court auction sale held on 11.4.1984. Both the Courts below have negatived the contentions of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove substantial injury due to the fraud and irregularity alleged by him to have taken place in the publication and conduct of the sale. No exception can be taken to the view expressed by the Courts below that under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. the last proviso is to the effect that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of illegality 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.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, the value of the property is more than one lakh of rupees and it had been undervalued in the proclamation and brought to sale by the respondent. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not let in any evidence whatever to prove the value of the property. No document has been filed and no person has been examined to speak to the value of the property. In those circumstances, the courts below are right in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove substantial injury.

(3.) IT is argued that after the filing of the Civil Revision Petition, when this court passed an order of stay, the entire amount due to the decree-holder has been deposited in the executing court and the sale should be set aside because of such deposit. I do not agree. Unless the petitioner makes out that he has suffered substantial injury by reason of the material irregularity or fraud in the conduct and publication of the sale. He cannot have the sale set aside.