JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - On 17-3-1958 opposite party obtained a decree for Rs. 460/- with costs. In Execution Petition No. 42 of 1958, the decree-holder put three items of property for sale. On 9-4-1960 the Court valued the three items u/s 14 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Rs. 2500/-. On the same day the Court held that as the attached properties were valued at Rs. 2500/- but the decretal dues were within Rs. 1000/-, the decree-holder was to take steps for sale of two fields out of three fields of attached land after giving separate description and value of those two fields so that each field would be put in separate lots for sale. The decree-holder accordingly valued the price of lot No. 1 at Rs. 800/- and that of lot No. 2 at Rs. 750/-. On 26-3-1962, the sale was held. Decree-holder was the highest bidder at Rs. 500/-for lot No. 1 and at Rs. 400/- for lot No. 2. On 31-7-1963 (that is about one year and four months after) the judgment-debtor (Petitioner) filed an application u/s 15 of the Act alleging that the properties were sold at a price lower than the price specified in the sale proclamation and that the sale was without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside and the period of limitation for setting aside the sale would be three years from the date of the sale under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court accepted the prayer of the judgment debtor and set aside the sale. The lower appellate Court held that the sale was not without jurisdiction and, as such, was not a nullity and that the period of limitation for setting aside that sale under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC would be 30 days from the date of the sale under Article 166 of the Limitation Act. Against the appellate order the judgment-debtor has filed this Civil Revision. 2. Mr. Pal contended that the sale held in contravention of Section 15 of the Act was without jurisdiction and was a nullity, and that such a sale need not be set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. Against the appellate order the judgment-debtor has filed this Civil Revision. 2. Mr. Pal contended that the sale held in contravention of Section 15 of the Act was without jurisdiction and was a nullity, and that such a sale need not be set aside under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. He argued that such a sale could be ignored and if it was intended to be set aside, Article 181 of the Limitation Act would have application and, as such, the application was not barred by limitation. 3. Various authorities have been cited in respect of rival contentions. It is unnecessary to notice these decisions as the matter is concluded by Dhirendra Nath v. Sudhir Chandra AIR 1964 S.C. 13 (sic). 4. To appreciate the contentions, Section 15(1) of the Act may be quoted 15(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 such property shall not be sold at a price lower than the price specified in the said proclamation. Emphasis is put by Mr. Pal on the expression such property shall not be sold at a price lower than the price specified in the said proclamation. The argument is that the statutory injunction is against the Court, that the provision is mandatory and not directory, and that the Court has no jurisdiction to effect a sale in violation of this mandatory provision. 5. The Supreme Court decision was on Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (Bengal Act X of 1940). That section is almost in identical terms as Section 15 of the Act. 5. The Supreme Court decision was on Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act (Bengal Act X of 1940). That section is almost in identical terms as Section 15 of the Act. It lays down- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the proclamation of the intended sale of property in execution of a decree passed in respect of a loan shall specify only so much of the property of the judgment-debtor as the Court considers to be saleable at a price sufficient to satisfy the decree, and the property so specified shall not be sold at a price which is less than the price specified in such proclamation. The identical argument was advanced and their Lordships negatived it with the following observation- Where the Court acts without inherent jurisdiction, a party affected cannot by waiver confer jurisdiction on it, which it has not. Where such jurisdiction is not wanting a directory provision can obviously be waived. But a mandatory provision can only be waived if it is not conceived in the public interests, but in the interests of the party that waives it. In the present case the executing court had inherent jurisdiction to sell the property. In that case it was argued that Section 35 of the Bengal Act was a mandatory provision. Yet it was held that it was intended only for the benefit of the judgment-debtor and he could waive the right conferred upon him under that section. On that legal position, Order 21, Rule 90, CPC is immediately attracted. The sale was not without jurisdiction or a nullity, but was merely a piece of material irregularity. Judgment-debtor?s contention was accordingly rejected by the Supreme Court. The same principle must be applied to the present case. 6. The material irregularity arising out of contravention of Section 15 of the Act related to the conducting of the sale. Under Order 21, Rule 90, Proviso (ii), CPC no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. Such an application must be filed within 30 days from the date of the sale under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. The application of the judgment-debtor was filed beyond one year and is barred by time. Such an application must be filed within 30 days from the date of the sale under Article 116 of the Limitation Act. The application of the judgment-debtor was filed beyond one year and is barred by time. There was no allegation in the application, much less proved, that there was substantial injury caused to the judgment-debtor by reason of such irregularity. The application had been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 7. The Civil Revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee of Rs. 50/- (rupees fifty). Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed