JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The judgment-debtor is the Appellant and this appeal is filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack setting aside the order of the Second Munsif, Cuttack. Respondent No. 2 obtained a decree against the Appellant and in execution of the said decree in Execution Case No. 49 of 1953, for realising a sum cl Rs. 2857.11.6, got attached certain books belonging to the judgment-debtor which are printed books kept by him for sale. There were two other execution cases by two different decree-holders against the judgment-debtor-Appellant in Execution Case No. 115 of 1953 and No. 42 of 1956 for realising sums amounting to about Rs. 1443/- and Rs. 3000/. respectively. u/s 14 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, these attached properties were valued at Rs. 850/- by the executing court. As here Was a claim application with regard to certain books attached, the books with regard to which there was no claim were valued at Rs. 7860-9.0 and were put to sale. The sale was held on 18-7-1956 for a sum of Rs. 1927/- and the decree-holder was the auction purchaser. The amount also was paid On 20.7-1956 by deposit in the treasury as the officer-conducting the sale did not receive the amount from him. After the sale was held, the judgment-debtor-Appellant filed an application involving the provisions of Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act and contended that the sale was a nullity and contrary to law. The learned Munsif accepted the contention, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge rejected the application filed by the judgment-debtor. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the sale was held contrary to the provisions of Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act and therefore was a nullity as it was without jurisdiction. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the sale was held contrary to the provisions of Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act and therefore was a nullity as it was without jurisdiction. Section 15 of the Money Lenders Act is to this effect, (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or in anything having the force of law, the proclamation of the intended sale of property in execution of a decree passed in respect of a loan or the interest on a loan shall include only so much of the property of the judgment-debtor, the proceeds of the sale of which the Court considers will be sufficient to satisfy the decree, and suck property shall not be sold at a price lower than the price specified in the said proclamation. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Sub-section (1) may appeal to the Court to which appeals from the Court executing the decree ordinarily lie. Provided that it the property to be sold is immovable property and the decree-holder specifies which portion of such property should be sold, the Court shall order that such portion or so much of such portion as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree shall be sold: Provided further that if the highest amount bid for the property included in the sale proclamation is less than the price specified for such property in the proclamation the Court may sell the property for such highest amount, if the decree-holder consents in writing to forego so much of the amount decreed as is equal to the difference between the highest amount bid and the price specified for such property in the sale proclamation. Mr. Misra contends that as per the mandatory provision of this section, the executing court could not sell the property for less than Rs. 7860-9.0 which was the price fixed in the proclamation and consequently the sale is void. Mr. Misra contends that as per the mandatory provision of this section, the executing court could not sell the property for less than Rs. 7860-9.0 which was the price fixed in the proclamation and consequently the sale is void. Under Order 21, Rule 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "No irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of movable property shall vitiate the sale; but any person sustaining any injury by reason of such irregularity at the hand of any other Person may institute a suit against him for compensation or (if such other person is the purchaser) for the recovery of the specific property and for compensation in default of such recovery". Mr. Misra contends that under Order 21, Rule 78, it is only an irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale which shall not vitiate the sale, but where there is an illegality or the sale in held contrary to the provisions of a statute, it would not be a case of an irregularity and consequently Mr. Misra contends that the learned Additional District Judge erred in holding that the provisions of Order 21, Rule 78 applied to the case. He also contends that the decision relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge in the case of Kuar Lakshmiraj Singh and Others Vs. Shankar and Others, does not also apply to the facts of the present case. In that case it was held There is no inherent power u/s 151 to set aside a sale of movable property in contravention to a definite direction enjoined by statute and this is so even in the case of omission to issue notice to the judgment-debtor and although such wrong procedure may cause injustice to the judgment-debtor. It is clear from this decision that the order of the learned Munsif which was based upon his inherent power to set aside the sale is not a correct order. In my opinion, the lower appellate court was right io relying upon this decision in coming to the conclusion that the order of the learned Munsif was wrong. Mr. Misra frankly admitted that he could not get at any decision where it was held that contravention of a statutory provision in the conduct of a sale would make the sale illegal and a nullity. Mr. Misra frankly admitted that he could not get at any decision where it was held that contravention of a statutory provision in the conduct of a sale would make the sale illegal and a nullity. There are many instances of cases where a contravention of statutory provisions in conduct of sales are held only to be mere Irregularities and if this sale of the books for a price below that which was fixed in the sale proclamation is an irregularity, in my opinion, there is no doubt that Order 21, Rule 78 stares Mr. Misra in the face. The Appellant can, if he thinks that he suffered loss, file a suit claiming compensation for the loss sustained by him on account of this irregularity as contemplated in Order 21, Rule 78. Bot the sale of the books for which the price was already paid into court cannot be set aside either under the inherent power of the court or as being an Irregularity in the conduct of the sale. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed