JUDGMENT : Ahmad, C.J. - This is an application in revision filed by the judgment-debtors who are brothers. There was a decree obtained against them for the recovery of rent, in respect of their holding by the opposite parties who are the ex-intermediaries of the said holding. The decree was obtained as stated by the Court of Execution about 12 years back and during this period it has been put under execution on a number of occasions. It is the last execution of the decree which has given rise to the present controversy between the parties. Originally, in the course of this last execution the entire holding had been put up for sale and, as by then no survey of that holding was effected the acreage was shown thereunder in terms of the seed capacity and yield and its identity in terms of boundaries. Subsequently, however, it appears that half of the holding was ultimately released from attachment for the reason that the same had already been sold by the judgment-debtors and Purchased by the wife of judgment-debtor No. 2, under a registered deed of sale dated 1-8-1962; but it is admitted that no fresh sale proclamation was thereafter taken out in respect of the remaining portion against which alone the execution was subsequently pursued, and it was this half which was ultimately sold on 31:10-1952 for the sum of Re. 1250.00. This led to a petition filed by the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 20, CPC for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud committed by the decree-holders in publishing the proclamation and conducting the sale. It was claimed to have resulted in substantial injury to them. This petition was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 136 of 1963 and finally, on contest, it was dismissed. Against that judgment, there was an appeal taken by the judgment-debtors which was numbered as Civil miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 1964. That was also, on hearing, dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this revision by the judgment-debtors. 2. This petition was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 136 of 1963 and finally, on contest, it was dismissed. Against that judgment, there was an appeal taken by the judgment-debtors which was numbered as Civil miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 1964. That was also, on hearing, dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, this revision by the judgment-debtors. 2. Both the Courts below have concurrently found:(1) that in the absence of the final record of rights the decree holders could not have better described the lands sold than was done by them in the sale proclamation; (ii) that after the release of half of the property from attachment no fresh proclamation was necessary for its publication under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC Code, and (iii) that the lands were not sold for any inadequate price. Accordingly, it has been held by both the Courts that there was no material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale, and in any case, thereby there was no injury accused to the judgment-debtors and much less any substantial injury. 3. These concurrent findings given by the two Courts below have been challenged before us by Mr. Govind Das appearing for the Petitioners. The submission made by the learned Counsel is that though it is true that before a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC Code, can succeed the applicant has to show that the impugned sale was vitiated by material irregularity or fraud in conducting it and that, in consequence of this irregularity or fraud he has substained substantial injury, there may be circumstances where the substantial injury, as alleged may be implicit in the material irregularity set out in the application. On principle, the submission made by the learned Counsel is well founded and is fully supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. Sethani Mukand Kanwar and Others. But on the facts of the present case, it cannot be successfully asserted that there is any substantial injury implicit in the material irregularity even if any, as alleged by the Petitioners. The Court below has carefully gone into the question of injury and has finally found that the perfected at the auction sale was neither inadequate, nor less than the real value of the property. Therefore, on this ground alone, this application should fail. The Court below has carefully gone into the question of injury and has finally found that the perfected at the auction sale was neither inadequate, nor less than the real value of the property. Therefore, on this ground alone, this application should fail. Further, it appears that in the course of the execution proceeding the judgment-debtors were all along present on the record so much so that on one date, a part-payment of Rs. 50.00 was also made and the auction was not adjourned to another date. Thereafter, not only that no further payment was made but also that the property was allowed to be sold on the aforesaid date (31-10-1962) for the sum of Rs. 1250.00 admittedly in the presence of Petitioner No. 1. It is true that Petitioner No. 1 disowns any claim to the holding put to sale, but it is not denied that he was one of the judgment-debtors under the decree and that he is the brother of the other Petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the execution proceeding was allowed to be carried out by the judgment-debtors with full knowledge on their part, s rightly held by the Court below. 4. Therefore, the petition under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC Code, as filed in the present case, is directly hit by the proviso (a) to Sub-rule (1) as added thereunder, originality by the Patna High Court, and subsequently adopted by the Orissa High Court. That proviso reads: No application to Bet aside a sale shall be admitted: (a) upon any ground which could have been but was not put forward by the applicant before the sale was concluded. In the present case, it is conclusively proved that the judgment-debtors were present on record, all along in the course of the execution proceeding and that part-payment was also made thereunder. In that view of the matter, if the Petitioners did not choose to put forward their claim, before the sale was held that the execution proceeding souffleed from any material irregularity or fraud either in publishing or conducting the sale they are now estopped to raise this plea after the sale has been effected. 5. For these reasons, I hold that the application is without substance. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 32/ -. Misra, J. 6. I agree. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed