JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation is the decree-holder. In execution, one of the prayer was for attachment and sale of a truck bearing registration No. 2058. Pursuant to the warrants of sale, the aforesaid truck was put to auction. The truck was sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 31,000 in due process of law. 2. The decree-holder applicant assailed the sale of the truck which was earlier hypothecated with them on the ground that the judgment-debtor No. 1 had managed to purchase the said truck benami through the auction-purchaser by practising fraud. 3. The aforesaid application was contested by Judgment-debtor No. 1. According to him, taking into consideration the fact that the truck was lying idle for the last two years it has fetched adequate price and, as such the sale cannot be set aside. 4. Simultaneously, the auction-purchaser Prem Prakash filed another application (O.M.P. No. 537 of 1988) under section 151 C. P. C. praying that the objections taken by the decree-holder in O. M. P. No. 523 of 1988 may be rejected on the ground that sale had become complete on November 1, 1988 under sub-rule (2) of Rule 77, Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. In O. M. P. No. 523 of 1988, this Court framed the following issues vide order dated December 28, 1988: "1. Whether the application in question is competent? O. P P. 2. Whether the truck in question has been sold at low price on account of collusion between the J, D. owner and the auction purchaser, as alleged and to what effect? O. P. A. 3. Relief." 6 The applicant was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavits within 2 weeks. The said time was then extended vide order dated April 11, 1989 subject to payment of Rs. 800 as costs No evidence has been adduced by the applicant (decree-holder) so far. In other words, the allegations of fraud or use of unlawful means by judgment-debtor No. 1 to purchase the aforesaid truck benami through auction-purchaser remains unsubstantiated. 7. In fact, the sale of moveable property becomes absolute automatically on the fall of hammer and deposit of its price. In other words, the allegations of fraud or use of unlawful means by judgment-debtor No. 1 to purchase the aforesaid truck benami through auction-purchaser remains unsubstantiated. 7. In fact, the sale of moveable property becomes absolute automatically on the fall of hammer and deposit of its price. While no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of moveable property shall vitiate the sale but any person sustaining any injury by reasons of such irregularity is entitled to institute a suit for compensation for the recovery of the specified property and for compensation in default of such recovery as is envisaged under Order 21, Rule 78, C. P. C. 8. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the auction purchaser has become the absolute owner of the aforesaid truck and as such O. M. P. No. 537 of 1988 is allowed. 9. There is no evidence, oral or documentary, on behalf of the decree-holder to substantiate its allegations in O. M. P. No. 523 of 1988. Accordingly, the said application is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 500. 10. The learned Counsel for the decree holder prays for 4 weeks time to take steps for the recovery of the balance decretal amount. Allowed. Order accordingly.