JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, 24-Parganas, dated the 1st of February, 1937, whereby the learned Judge has refused the Appellant-judgment-debtor's application for setting aside a sale under Or. 21, r. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the Appellant is that there had been material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale and that in consequence thereof the property was sold at a very inadequate price with the result that he suffered substantial loss. 2. The material irregularity in publishing the sale on which the Appellant relied in the trial Court is that the processes in execution were not served. The Subordinate Judge, on the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the processes were served. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant did not challenge this finding before us. There was, therefore, no irregularity in publishing the sale. 3. The case of the Appellant, however, further is that there had been irregularity in conducting the sale. 4. It appears that the 10th of June, 1936, was fixed for the sale of this property. On that date, the Nazir was directed by the Subordinate Judge to conduct the sale and report. The sale was held on that date. But the decree-holder was the only bidder. His bid went up to Rs. 8,123-2-6 pies. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this bid as he was of opinion that it was very low. He ordered that the property should be put up for sale the next day. On the next day, the decree-holder raised his bid to Rs. 10,000. The Subordinate Judge considered this bid also to be insufficient and ordered that the property should be again put up for sale on the day following. 5. It further appears from the record of this case that on the day that the decree-holder raised his bid to Rs. 10,000 the Respondent No. 3 in this appeal filed an application under sec. 73 of the CPC for rateable distribution and the Subordinate Judge thereupon made the following order: The decree-holder if he bids must pay in cash half the amount and half will be set off against the decree. 6. On the 12th of June, 1936, the property was again put up for sale. The decree-holder, however, did not offer any bid. 73 of the CPC for rateable distribution and the Subordinate Judge thereupon made the following order: The decree-holder if he bids must pay in cash half the amount and half will be set off against the decree. 6. On the 12th of June, 1936, the property was again put up for sale. The decree-holder, however, did not offer any bid. The Respondent No. 3 was the only bidder on that day and his bid was Rs. 6,000. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted this bid although the decree-holder asked the Subordinate Judge to issue fresh sale proclamation. 7. The contention of the Appellant is that the learned Subordinate Judge was not justified in directing the decree-holder to pay half the purchase money on the 11th of June, 1936, inasmuch as his bid of Rs. 10,000 was not accepted on that date and the property was directed to be sold on the next day. It appears that on the 9th of June, 1936, the decree-holder applied for permission to bid at the sale and he was permitted to do so. On the 11th of June, 1936, the Subordinate Judge should not have attached a further condition to this permission that if the decree-holder wanted to bid he must pay in cash half the amount, inasmuch as ordinarily the decree-holder purchaser is entitled to have the purchase money set off against his decretal dues. 8. It is true that the right of the decree-holder purchaser to claim this set off is subject to the provisions of sec. 73 of the Code. But the question of set off arises only after the decree-holder purchaser's bid has been accepted by the Court and not before. The effect of the learned Judge's order directing the decree-holder to pay in cash half of the purchase money was that before he purchased the property, his right to claim set off so far as half of the amount was concerned was negatived. 9. Mr. Sen on behalf of the auction-purchaser contended that as the Court had power under sec. 72 to refuse permission to bid, by implication the Court also had the power to attach conditions to such permission subsequently if the Court found that such condition should be attached in view of subsequent events. Mr. 9. Mr. Sen on behalf of the auction-purchaser contended that as the Court had power under sec. 72 to refuse permission to bid, by implication the Court also had the power to attach conditions to such permission subsequently if the Court found that such condition should be attached in view of subsequent events. Mr. Sen's contention was that as the Respondent No. 3 made an application for rateable distribution on the 11th of June, the Court in order to safeguard his interest was justified in directing the decree-holder to deposit half of the purchase money in cash. 10. The decree-holder got an unconditional permission to bid at the sale on the 9th of June. It is true that the Court in giving permission may attach conditions to the permission, but that must always be in the interest of the judgment-debtor so that the property may be sold at its proper price. It often happens that in granting permission the Court attaches a condition that the decree-holder must bid at least up to the decretal amount. This is clone in the interest of the judgment-debtor. 11. In this case however as has been already stated, after the Court directed that the decree-holder must pay in cash half of the purchase money, the decree-holder retired from the scene and did not offer any bid with the result that the Respondent No. 3 who did not offer any bid at the two previous sales got the opportunity of purchasing this property for Rs. 6,000 only, though the bid on the previous date went up to Rs. 10,000. 12. It appears from the sale proclamation that the decree-holder valued the property at Rs. 10,000 in the sale proclamation. The evidence in this case also shows that the income from the tenanted portion of the lands sold is about Rs. 70 per month. There cannot be any doubt, therefore, that the property was sold at an inadequate price. 13. This inadequacy of price was the result of the decree-holder's abstaining from offering any bid on the last date of the sale. That the property was sold at an inadequate price is also clear from the fact that the decree-holder on the last date of the sale himself applied for a fresh sale proclamation. 13. This inadequacy of price was the result of the decree-holder's abstaining from offering any bid on the last date of the sale. That the property was sold at an inadequate price is also clear from the fact that the decree-holder on the last date of the sale himself applied for a fresh sale proclamation. In view of the events that have happened in this case the proper course for the Subordinate Judge was to grant the decree-holder's application for re-sale after serving fresh sale proclamation. 14. I am, therefore, of opinion that there had been material irregularity in conducting the sale and that on account of this material irregularity substantial loss has resulted to the judgment-debtor. 15. The sale is accordingly set aside and the order dismissing the application for execution in part satisfaction is also set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge is directed to re-sell the property after publishing fresh sale proclamation. 16. The result is that the appeal is allowed with costs--the hearing-fee being assessed at two gold mohurs, to be realised from Respondent No. 3. Derbyshire, C.J. 17. I agree that the sale should be set aside. 18. I wish to add only a few words. Although I am not prepared to say that it was incompetent for the Judge to attach a condition that he should pay half the price, to the decree-holder's permission to bid, I think it was unwise to do so in this case. The result of his attaching this condition was, as I think the Judge ought to have foreseen, to make the decree-holder unwilling to bid. The decree-holder hitherto had been the only bidder. The; learned Judge in my view should, at this stag have directed that the sale be re-advertised so as to get other bidders in case the decree-holder would decide not to bid. In failing to do this I think there was a material irregularity. The re-suit of it was that the present purchaser stepped in the absence of other bidders and snatched the property at a price which the learned Judge himself two days earlier had said was inadequate. It appears to me that the judgment-debtor has sustained substantial loss in this case and the sale ought to be set aside.