JUDGMENT A.R. Navkar, J.—This is an appeal arising out of the order dated 30-1-1979, passed in Execution Case No. 7 of 1976 by the District Judge, Morena. In Civil Case No. 7 of 1976, a decree was passed on 14-7-1976 in favour of one Turamsingh son of Bharatsingh against firm Gangavishan Heeralal, a registered partnership, Dattapura, Morena and Chhotelal son of Gangavishan Vaishya, Dattapura, Morena. There was no appeal against the decree and when the decree was put in execution on 2-8-1976, the amount to be paid by the judgment-debtor was Rs. 3,529.75. In the execution of the decree, a house belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached and subsequently, it was put to auction. On different dates the auction took place. From the file, it seems that the property was put to auction more than one time. First, it was put to auction on 22nd, 23rd and 24th August, 1976. Then it was again put to auction on 23-2-1978 and onwards. Then it was again put to auction in the month of May 1978, and in the end, on 11-9-1978, there was a bid for Rs. 51,100 by respondent No. 2 and the Court accepted the bid on 28-9-1978. After acceptance of the bid, the appellant submitted an application under Order 21, Rule 82, Civil Procedure Code, and raised certain objection. The trial Court rejected the permission asked for a private sale and it also rejected the application filed by the judgment-debtor mentioning it to be under Order 21, Rule 82, Civil Procedure Code. Against that the present appeal is directed. 2. Certain facts which are necessary for the decision of the case are that the amount for which the execution was started is a paltry sum of Rs. 3,529.75. It is alleged by the judgment-debtor that the value of the house is more than a lakh of rupees. In the first execution proceedings the bid was for Rs. 62,250 and 1/4th amount was deposited by Munnalal who was the bidder, but the Court did not accept the bid and adjourned it. The offset value mentioned by the Court of the house is Rs. 35,000. 3. In the first execution proceedings the bid was for Rs. 62,250 and 1/4th amount was deposited by Munnalal who was the bidder, but the Court did not accept the bid and adjourned it. The offset value mentioned by the Court of the house is Rs. 35,000. 3. The first objection before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the auction-purchaser Shri B.L. Agarwal is that there is no application under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC and therefore, now the learned counsel cannot take objection which he should have raised in an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, To this the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant replied that it would have been better if the application had been given under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, But, if he can satisfy the Court from the record itself that there are irregularities and illegalities in the conduct of the sale of the house, then the Court is competent to set it aside. Even otherwise he said that he has mentioned in his application that formerly the bid was to the extent of Rs. 64,000 that the Court Nazir has colluded with the auction purchaser and the bid is knocked down for a small amount that if the house is sold in the open market it will fetch at least a lakh of rupees and, therefore, he should be allowed to sell the property privately, or in the alternative, it should be auctioned again, that because of this auction, he has suffered irreparable loss. 4. He has raised certain objections that the notice which was issued under Order 21, Rule 66, CPC the information in it is not given as required under that Rule. It was also mentioned that while publishing the auction, it was not with a beat of drum. Therefore, the auction of the house is illegal. To this the reply of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the auction-purchaser is that under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC no application to set aside a sale under this Rule shall be entertained on an objection which could have been raised by the appellant on the date on which the proclamation of the sale was drawn up. To this the reply of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the auction-purchaser is that under Order 21, Rule 90, CPC no application to set aside a sale under this Rule shall be entertained on an objection which could have been raised by the appellant on the date on which the proclamation of the sale was drawn up. Therefore, I will have to accept his objection and the objections which the learned counsel submitted regarding the proclamation of sale and its publication cannot be entertained. 5. Now, the question is if from the record, it can be shown that there is irregularity or illegality in conducting the sale, whether the Court can take notice of it and set aside the same. This point was considered in Pannalal v. Firm Hasan Dada AIR 1939 Nag. 258, and the relevant observation from this judgment are as under: Where an irregularity is demonstrable from the record itself it is within the power of the Court to consider the objection based on such irregularity even if not specifically taken in the application and the Court's dealing with it cannot be questioned at a later stage on the ground of delay. Similarly, in the same judgment it was considered as to what is the difference between irregularity and illegality and its effect and it was held as under: The difference between an irregularity and an illegality is one ot degree, and that an irregularity of so serious a nature as to render impossible the publicity which affords one main security for the fairness of public sales must be deemed to be an illegality. Hence the holding of a sale two or three hours before the time fixed is not merely an irregularity but an illegality which in itself renders the sale void, because it is more than likely that intending bidders relying on the proclamation would not turn until too late. The fact that there was beat of drum in the village just before the sale was actually held would not make any difference to intending bidders. In such a case therefore the Court can set aside the sale on its own initiative. In any case such an illegality is at least a material irregularity and the matter can, therefore, be dealt with under Order 21, Rule 90. 6. Relying on the judgment in Pannalal's case (Supra) in Misc. In such a case therefore the Court can set aside the sale on its own initiative. In any case such an illegality is at least a material irregularity and the matter can, therefore, be dealt with under Order 21, Rule 90. 6. Relying on the judgment in Pannalal's case (Supra) in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1968, it was held that the sale held a few hours before the advertised time, is void. It was also held in the same judgment that the objections of the appellants, if they are borne out from the record, then they can be taken into consideration to decide whether the sale is vitiated because of material irregularity. It further lays down that omission to specify the hour of sale is a material irregularity within the meaning of Order 21, rule 90, CPC when a sale is adjourned to a certain date the omission to specify the hour of sale will amount to a material irregularity. Rule 21 of the Rules and Orders (Civil) was also considered in which it is mentioned that the sale has to proceed day to day and at a fixed time. It is also observed that on the final day when the bids would be accepted the sale will at least be held on that time fixed because the purchasers are not expected to wait so that whenever the sale amin drops in they may participate in the sale and because the time, the hour was not mentioned properly when the sale was to take place, the sale in that case was held to be bad and it was set aside. Reliance was also placed on S.L. Swing v. Brij Gopal AIR 1943 Audh. 204 and on Shila Pal and Others Vs. Comilla Banking Corporation Ltd. and Others, A sale through the court is not a mere formality. The interest in the property of the judgment-debtor is to be sold even though when sale takes place through court there is no guarantee of title to the property sold. As this is so, the purchasers must know at least at what time and on what date the sale, or the adjourned sale will take place and at what time the final auction will take place in the court-house. If it is missing, then certainly it will amount to a material irregularity. 7. As this is so, the purchasers must know at least at what time and on what date the sale, or the adjourned sale will take place and at what time the final auction will take place in the court-house. If it is missing, then certainly it will amount to a material irregularity. 7. Now it is to be seen whether in this case the proceedings have been conducted according to the principles laid down above. The last sale proclamation is dated 29-7-1978 in which it is mentioned that the sale will start on 29-8-1978 at 2.00 p. m. and it will continue upto 30th and 31st of August, 1978. The auction in the court will take place on 1st September 1978. On 29-8-1978, the offset price is recorded as Rs. 20,000 but nobody took part in the auction. The sale was postponed to 30-8-1978. On 30-8-1978, the same thing is repeated. On 31st of August 1978 one Hukumchand Jain gave the bid for Rs. 25,000. On that date the bid was increased upto Rs. 51,000. The order dated 2-9-1978 shows that the auction should continue. But here also, no mention of time as to when the auction will take place. On 2-9-1978 when the auction took place in the court precincts no time is shown but on 2-9-1978 nobody gave a bid. Therefore, the report of Nazir is that the person who has given the bid is willing to deposit one fourth of the amount. Therefore, proper orders be given. This also does not give any time if auction is to take place again after the said date. Then the auction is continued to 4-9-1978 but it shows that nobody offered any bid, but the order is that the bid should continue. That order is dated 8-9-1978. But when the auction was continued after 8-9-1978, again there is no mention as to the time. On 11-9-1978 the bid Reached the sum of Rs. 51,100. Then the auction was postponed to 12-9-1978, but the order dated 11-9-1978 does not show at what time the auction will take place. The record shows that the auction continued on 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 25th September 1978. On 25-9-1978, there is no order of the Court when the auction should continue. 51,100. Then the auction was postponed to 12-9-1978, but the order dated 11-9-1978 does not show at what time the auction will take place. The record shows that the auction continued on 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 25th September 1978. On 25-9-1978, there is no order of the Court when the auction should continue. It continued to 26-9-1978 and on 27-9-1978 and on 28-9-1978, the Court passed an order that the bid of Rs. 51,100 should be accepted. But when the auction was postponed from day to day, it does not indicate the time as to when the auction will take place on the next day. It also does not show as to actually when the auction took place. Therefore, the admissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the auction-purchaser that it must have taken place on the date mentioned in the proclamation is difficult to accept. This is how the auction has taken place. These proceedings are challenged before me. Therefore, I need not decide whether the auction proceedings which were taken formerly are valid or not. Suffice it to say that they suffer from the same infirmity which I have mentioned above. Therefore, relying on the rulling cited above, I will have to hold that the auction is full of material irregularities amount to illegalities and, therefore, it is not a valid auction and that auction cannot be maintained. As to the irreparable loss, it is evidence form the file itself that when the first auction took place, the bid was to the extent of Rs. 62,350 while in the present auction, it is only Rs. 51,100. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is a loss of Rs. 11,250 certainly. It is a substantial injury to the judgment-debtor. Therefore, such an auction cannot be upheld as legal and I will have to set it aside. I am not willing to uphold the technical objection of the non-applicant-auction-purchaser that the application for setting aside the sale is given under Order 21, rule 82, CPC and not under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. I was referred to Punjab Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. I am not willing to uphold the technical objection of the non-applicant-auction-purchaser that the application for setting aside the sale is given under Order 21, rule 82, CPC and not under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. I was referred to Punjab Mercantile Bank Ltd. Vs. Sardar Kishan Singh, in which it was held that if the sale is not widely published and approximate value of the property if not indicated in the proclamation and if the property fetches less value, then the sale cannot be said to be genuine and if there is sharp practice as a result of a well-planned fraud which is practiced on the court then the sale could be set aside under the court's inherent powers even though the application under Order 21, rule 90, CPC is filed beyond limitation provided that it is within limitation u/s 166 of the Limitation Act. It also further goes no to say that such an application can be filed even by a person who has no interest in the property and he has not suffered any injury. As to the inherent powers of the Court to see whether the sale is valid or not, I have already said above but a person who has no locus standi can also give an application under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. His observation, I am not in a position to agree, because it runs counter to Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure itself. A person who does not suffer any substantial -injury cannot make an application under Order 21, rule 90, CPC and if that is the position, then a person having no locus standi to file an application cannot file application because he will not suffer any substantial injury because of the auction. 8. Other rulings were also cited before me, but there is no need of discussing these rulings, because those rulings are followed by this Court in the judgment given in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1968. 9. 8. Other rulings were also cited before me, but there is no need of discussing these rulings, because those rulings are followed by this Court in the judgment given in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 1968. 9. As I have held that the auction is not according to law, I will have to set aside the auction proceedings held in the lower Court and for that the application filed by the judgment-debtor will have to be allowed and if it is to be allowed, then the appeal deserves to be accepted and it is accepted and allowed and the auction of the disputed property of the judgment-debtor and the final bid which is accepted by the trial Court is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court for proceedings in the case further according to law. No order as to costs.