JUDGMENT - BHARUCHA S.P., J.: - It is contended on behalf of the auction purchaser at the sale of an immovable property conducted by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts in execution of a decree that, for the purposes of confirmation of the sale, the court is obliged to act mechanically and cannot decline to confirm a sale on account of inadequacy of price. I cannot agree. 2. I base my disagreement upon the following passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court in (M/s. Kayjay Industries (P.) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd.)1, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1331: “In all public sales the authority must protect the interests of the parties and the rule is stated by this Court in (Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanya Das)2, 1970(3) S.C.R. 1 thus: “The principles which should govern confirmation of sales are well established. Where the acceptance of the offer by the Commissioner is subject to confirmation of the Court the offerer does not by mere acceptance get any vested right in the property so that he may demand automatic confirmation of his offer. The condition of confirmation by the Court operates as a safeguard against the property being sold at inadequate price whether or not it is a consequence of any irregularity or fraud in the conduct of sale. In every case it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself that having regard to the market value of the property the price offered is unreasonable. Unless the court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion”. Be it by a Receiver, Commissioner, liquidator or Court this principle must govern. This proposition has been propounded in many rulings cited before us and summed up by the High Courts. The expressions 'material irregularity in the conduct of the sale' must be benignantly construed to cover the climax act of the Court accepting the highest bid. Indeed, under the Civil Procedure Code, it is the Court which conducts the sale and its duty to apply its mind to the material factors bearing on the reasonableness of the price offered is part of the process of obtaining a proper price in the course of the sale. Therefore, failure to apply its mind to this aspect of the conduct of the sale may amount to material irregularity. Therefore, failure to apply its mind to this aspect of the conduct of the sale may amount to material irregularity. Mere substantial injury without material irregularity is not enough even as material irregularity not linked directly to inadequacy of the price is insufficient. And where a Court mechanically conducts the sale or routinely signs assent to the sale papers, not bothering to see if the offer is too low and a better price could have been obtained, and in fact the price is substantially inadequate, there is the presence of both the elements of irregularity and injury. But it is not as if the Court should go on adjourning the sale till a good price is got, it being a notorious fact that Court sales and market prices are distant neighbours. Otherwise, decree-holders can never get the property of the debtor sold. Nor is it right to judge the unfairness of the price by hindsight wisdom. May be, subsequent events, not within the ken of the Executing Court when holding the sale, may prove that had the sale been adjourned a better price could have been had. What is expected of the judge is not to be a prophet but a pragmatist and merely to make a realistic appraisal of the factors, and if satisfied that, in the given circumstances, the bid is acceptable, conclude the sale. The Court may consider the fair value of the property, the general economic trends, the large sum required to be produced by the bidder, the formation of a syndicate, the futility of postponements and the possibility of litigation, and several other factors dependent on the facts of each case. Once that is done, the matter ends there.” (Emphasis supplied). 3. I do not agree with Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the auction purchaser, that the aforesaid is intended to apply only to the court or authority that conducts the sale and not to the court that confirms it. This is clear from the quotation from the case of Navalkha Sons. 4. I do not mean to suggest that any inadequacy of price would justify non-confirmation of sale, but where the inadequacy is substantial the confirming court is entitled to decline to confirm the sale. 5. In the instant case 8 acres and 30 gunthas of land, with building thereon, situated upon the island of Elephanta were auctioned. 4. I do not mean to suggest that any inadequacy of price would justify non-confirmation of sale, but where the inadequacy is substantial the confirming court is entitled to decline to confirm the sale. 5. In the instant case 8 acres and 30 gunthas of land, with building thereon, situated upon the island of Elephanta were auctioned. There was a minimum bid of Rs. 4 lakhs. There were only 3 bidders. The highest bid was for Rs. 4,70,000/-, that of the auction purchaser. 6. There are present before me today counsel for several prospective purchasers. There is one Rane who offers Rs. 10 Lakhs, one Nilkanth who offers Rs. 8.5 Lakhs, one Manjrekar who offers Rs. 9.2 lakhs and the Transport Corporation of India which offers Rs. 9 Lakhs. Some of the prospective purchasers have made deposits with the Commissioner for Taking Accounts of a part of their intended purchase price. 7. The property was auctioned on 29th April, 1985. There are several prospective purchasers who, on 19th August, 1985, are willing to pay approximately twice the amount of the highest bid for the property. It appears to me, therefore, clear that the amount of Rs. 4,70,000/-, which is the price at which the sale is up for confirmation, is grossly inadequate. Where, as here, “the price is substantially inadequate, there is the presence of both the elements of irregularity and injury”. 8. I decline, in the circumstances, to confirm the sale and dismiss the Chamber Summons (No. 530 of 1985) taken out by the auction purchaser for confirmation. The Commissioner for Taking Accounts is directed to re-auction the property after following the appropriate procedure. 9. Some of the perspective purchasers have had issued Chamber Summonses (being Nos. 400, 525 and 526 of 1985) for setting aside the auction sale. Having regard to the view that I have taken in regard to the confirmation of the sale, I make no order on these Chamber Summonses. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. -----