Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 1, 1913) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack. In 1909 an estate in Orissa then owned by the appellants was put up for sale for arrears of Government revenue, a notification of the sale having been published in the Calcutta Gazette, and was purchased by the respondents. The Commissioner having rejected an application by the appellants to set aside the sale, the appellants instituted the present suit with that object. By their plaint they submitted that a notification of the sale in the Government vernacular Gazette for Urya was necessary under s. 6 of Act XI. of 1859 ; they alleged that by reason of the omission so to notify the sale the estate had been sold for an inadequate price, and they had suffered substantial injury. It appeared that the practice in Bengal was that all notifications required by law to be made by local Governments were published in the Calcutta Gazette, selected portions being translated and published in the Government vernacular Gazettes. In 1895 the Government of Bengal, in revising the matters so to be notified in the Government vernacular Gazette for Urya, ordered that the publication of revenue Law Rep. 45 Ind. App. 205 ( 1917- 1918) Sharfuddin Hossain V. Radha C haran Das 95 sale proclamations should be discontinued. Notification of revenue sales in the Urya Gazette was resumed in 1911. The Subordinate Judge held that a notification in the Urya Gazette was necessary under s. 6, and that the omission rendered the sale void, even if substantial injury was not proved under s. 33. He found as a fact that the price was not inadequate for a revenue sale, but on the ground above stated decreed the suit. The High Court reversed the decree. The learned judges (Richardson and Newbould JJ.) held that the notification in the Calcutta Gazette was a sufficient compliance with s. 6 of the Act. They were further of opinion that, in any case, under s. 33 the omission to publish a notification in the Urya Gazette would not have rendered the sale void, since no substantial injury had resulted therefrom. 1918. June 18. Dunne K.C. and T. B. W. Ramsay for the appellants. Under s. 6 of Act XI. of 1859 a notification of the sale should have been published in the Urya Government Gazette. 1918. June 18. Dunne K.C. and T. B. W. Ramsay for the appellants. Under s. 6 of Act XI. of 1859 a notification of the sale should have been published in the Urya Government Gazette. When a vernacular Gazette exists "the official Gazette" referred to in that section is not solely the Calcutta Gazette. The word "Gazette" in s. 6 must be read as including the plural under the General Clauses Act (X. of 1897), s. 13. It was expressly held by a Full Bench in Lola Mobarak Lal v. Secretary of State for India (( 1885) I. L. R. 11 C. 200.) that failure to comply with s. 6 rendered the sale void, apart from inadequacy of price. That decision was not overruled by Gobind Lal v. Ramjanam Misser (1); that appeal did not arise under s. 6, but under s. 17. The evidence shows that the price was inadequate. Kenworthy Brown for the respondents. The notification in the Calcutta Gazette was a sufficient compliance with s. 6. But, in any case, under s. 33 an omission to publish a notification in the vernacular Gazette did not avoid the sale in the absence of proof of substantial injury. The judgment of the Board in Gobind Lal’s Case (( 1893) L. R. 20 I. A. 165.) refers expressly to irregularities in publishing the sale, and is applicable, The decision in Tassaduk Rasul Khan v. Ahmed Husain (( 1893) L. R. 20 1. A. 176.), under the provisions of ss. 289, 290, and 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, also strongly supports the respondents. [He was stopped.) The judgment of the Board was delivered by LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta, dated July 1, 1913. That decree reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court of Cuttack, dated March 30, 1911. The suit was one to set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue. The sale had been conducted under the provisions of the leading statute, Act XI. of 1859. That decree reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court of Cuttack, dated March 30, 1911. The suit was one to set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue. The sale had been conducted under the provisions of the leading statute, Act XI. of 1859. By s. 33 of that statute it is provided that no such sale " shall be annulled by a Court of justice, except upon the ground of its having been made contrary to the provisions of this Act, and then only on proof that the plaintiff has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity complained of." The defect of procedure which is said not to be merely an irregularity but to amount to an illegality is this—that publication of the notification of sale was necessary in the Urya vernacular Government Gazette, circulating in the district. By order of the Lieutenant-Governor, manifestly made for purposes of public convenience, it was provided that a notification of sales should not appear in that publication. On the hypothesis, which is by no means admitted, that non-publication in the Urya Gazette was an Law Rep. 45 Ind. App. 205 ( 1917- 1918) Sharfuddin Hossain V. Radha C haran Das 96 irregularity, the question for the Board is whether the omission was an illegality. The main provisions applicable to the conduct of sales, namely, those of ss. 3, 5, and 6 of the statute, were in all points complied with. Those sections provide, not only for notification in the " official Gazette," which is, on the proper interpretation of those sections, the official Gazette published in Calcutta, but they also make provisions for a local mode of communication in the particular district, namely, " in the language of that district, in the office of the collector," otherwise as set forth in s. 3. In these circumstances their Lordships are of opinion that no ground has been made out in the present case for the argument that this sale has been made by procedure contrary to the provisions of this Act. In these circumstances their Lordships are of opinion that no ground has been made out in the present case for the argument that this sale has been made by procedure contrary to the provisions of this Act. Their Lordships are of opinion not only that there has been no contravention of the provisions of the statute, but that, even if their view was that any irregularity had been committed, upon which it is not necessary to enter further, there has been no proof offered that any substantial injury arose to the appellants in consequence of the irregularity complained of. On the latter point all the Courts below are agreed, that is to say, that it is not established that the appellants bring forward a case of any substantial injury attributable to the irregularity which they allege. The essential conditions for setting aside the sale have accordingly not been satisfied. In those circumstances their Lordships do not doubt that the High Court have come to a correct conclusion, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed with costs.