THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.724 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 27.04.2011 in E.A.No.58 of 2010 in E.P.No.39 of 2008 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, Guntur District. 2. The above application was filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {“CPC” for brevity}, seeking to set aside the sale of the schedule property, which was conducted on 19.08.2010, on the ground that the bid amount is Rs.9,00,000/- whereas the value of the property is Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, the price fetched is inadequate and that the decree holder did not obtain any valuation certificate from the Sub-Registrar, Piduguralla. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the rate fetched in the open auction was correct market value of the property. 3. The contention of the appellant was resisted by the respondents and stated that the valuation certificate of the Sub Registrar is not correct and it is only for the purpose of registration. There is no irregularity or illegality in conducting the auction. 4. The only ground taken in the application filed by the appellant-petitioner is inadequacy of the sale amount. 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that after giving vide publicity, the sale was conducted by the Court below and the third party-auction purchaser, second respondent herein, became the successful bidder for Rs.9,00,000/- on 19.08.2010. On an earlier occasion, the judgment debtor has filed an application stating that he has no possession over the property and he has no saleable interest. His objections were overruled and the matter was posted for further steps. After the sale was held, the present application seems to have been filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. The judgment debtor can file an application to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting sale. No auction sale can be set aside for any irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the auction of the sale unless the aggrieved person proves that substantial injury was caused to him due to the sale. 6. Order XXI Rule 90 CPC reads as under. 90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud:- (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity 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. (3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date of which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. 7. On the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, the sale can be set aside. There is no allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that there is fraud played by the decree holder or there was a material irregularity in conducting or publishing the sale. Except filing the document said to have been issued by the Sub Registrar stating that the value of the property is Rs.20,00,000/-, he has not come to the Witness Box to speak that the value of the property is Rs.20,00,000/- and the Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub Registrar is true and correct. Further, under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, the value of the property has to be stated by the judgment debtor. 8. It is not his case that before conducting the sale, he was not given any opportunity to furnish the value of the property. Therefore, in the absence of fraud or irregularity in conducting or publishing the sale, the impugned order needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to withdraw the amount that was deposited by him in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 20.07.2011 in CMA.MP.No.1308 of 2011. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 29th August 2011 RRB