SUDHIR CHADRA GHOSH Vs. SURESH CHANDRA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal several contentions were raised by the Appellant but only one of those contentions, in our opinion, should prevail. The Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order of the Subordinate Court refusing to set aside the sale. It has been contended before us that the learned Judge should have set aside the sale, firstly, because there were irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale and, secondly, because the price obtained at the sale was inadequate and as such there has been substantial injury to the Appellant and, lastly, the sale is invalid because of non-compliance of Section 35 of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act.

(2.) At the very outset I should mention that so far as the first and the second grounds are concerned we are not satisfied that there has been any substantial injury to the Appellant. Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a sale can be set aside if there were irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale provided there has been substantial injury to the judgment-debtor as a result of such irregularities. Thus it is essential to establish that there has been substantial injury before the judgment-debtor can succeed in an application to set aside the sale. Mere irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale even assuming that there were such irregularities, would not be sufficient to enable us to set aside a sale.

(3.) In this appeal it has been contended before us by the Appellant that the price fetched of the lots which were put up for sale was inadequate and there has been substantial injury to the Appellant who was the judgment-debtor and whose property had been put up for sale. We are not satisfied on the materials which are on record that the price which has been obtained as a result of the sale was inadequate or insufficient. In our opinion, the judgment-debtor has failed to establish that there was such inadequacy of price and as such he has suffered any injury.. On the materials on the record we are satisfied that the price which had been obtained on such sale was sufficient and as such there has been no injury to the judgment-debtor. That being our view, the first and the second grounds raised fail.