JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Chandigarh dated 12.4.91, whereby he has refused to set aside sale under Order 21, Rule 90 in execution case No. 10/86, and confirmed under Order 21, Rule 92. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur respondent no. 1 sanctioned a loan for Rs. 1 lac appellant and respondent No. 3 but he could not repay the amount. A suit was filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1 lac for machinery and 50 thousand for construction of building to the appellant and respondent no. 1 Bank decree-holder filed and it was decreed for Rs. 1,81,011/-. The respondent no. 1 Bank decree- holder filed an execution petition. The appellant filed objections but the same were rejected. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal. 2. Mr. N.K. Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sale was conducted on 20.3.90 without giving proper and full particulars in the proclamation of sale and thus mandatory provisions were not complied with. He has further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence regarding valuation of property. He has placed reliance on Gajadhar Prased v. Babu, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2593, and M/S Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Corporation.On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Shishodia and Mr. Suresh Shrimalee, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is raising objection only to delay the execution. The petitioner has not produced any evidence despite sufficient opportunities were granted to him and on the basis of alleged minor irregularity, if any, the sale cannot be called void. He has placed reliance on Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya, 1987 RLW 260 ; M/s Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s PSNEW Drugs (P) Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1331, Kaluram v. Shamboo Singh, AIR 1964 Rajasthan 84, Dhinendranath Sbalchandranath Saha & Ors. v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1300 and Chuttanlal v. Md. Ikram Khan, AIR 1933 Allahabad 546. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as case law.In Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya (Supra) notice has been given to the judgment -debtor before drawing up proclamation of sale by the executing Court and notice was duly served on him. Ikram Khan, AIR 1933 Allahabad 546. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as case law.In Mohanlal v. Firm Devichand Nathulal Jewariya (Supra) notice has been given to the judgment -debtor before drawing up proclamation of sale by the executing Court and notice was duly served on him. The judgment debtor did not raise any objections at that time that the estimated market value put by the intended sale was under value or under estimated. Having not raised the objection at that time, the judgment debtor was precluded from raising such objection after the property had been put to auction and the sale had been knocked down in favour of the decree-holder who had obtained permission to bid".In M/s Kaujay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s PSNEW Drugs (P) Ltd. (supra) it has been observed that more inadequacy of price cannot demoshin every Court sale. Here, the Court tried its best, time after time to raise the price. It has also been observed that the sale proceedings had been pending too long and the first respondent could not even when given the opportunity, produce byerirs by private negotiation. No value report was produced by him. It has been held that we are satisfied that the District Judge has committed no material irregularity in the conduct of the sale in accepting the highest offers of appellant on September 3, 1969.In Kaluram v. Shamboo Singh (supra), no objection to undervaluation in sale proclamation even though notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was served personally on judgment-debtor, sale at inadequate price. It has been held that judgment-debtor is estopped from raising objection that inadequacy of price was due to undervaluation in sale proclamation.In Dhinendranath Sbalchandranath Saha & Ors. v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh (supra), it has been observed that non-compliance with Section 35 does not sale a nullity. Judgment-debtor although receiving notice of proclamation not attending up proclamation and also not taking objection to non-observance of the Section, sale is not liable to be set aside.In Chuttanlal v. Md. Ikram Khan (supra) it has been observed that under Order 21, Rule 90 judgment-debtor failing to object to under-valuation of property even where notices under Rule 66, he is estopped from urging undervaluation as ground for material irregularity. 4. Ikram Khan (supra) it has been observed that under Order 21, Rule 90 judgment-debtor failing to object to under-valuation of property even where notices under Rule 66, he is estopped from urging undervaluation as ground for material irregularity. 4. When property is sold in public auction in execution of the decree as per provision of Order 21, Rule 66, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be in the language after notice to all parties. The proclamation to be drawn after notice and it shall state time and place fairly and accurately so that the persons can know the nature and value of the property. The purpose is to give maximum benefit to the judgment debtor by fetching a good price. If estimate is given by judgment-debtor, the Court may enter and give its own estimate. Under Order 21, Rule 54, the judgment debtor is required to attend the Court on specific date to the fixed for settling the proclamation. The order of proclamation is to be fixed at conspicuous places adjacent to the property and also by beat of drums and other customary mode. Under Order 21, Rule 90 the sale can be set aside on the ground of material irregularity of fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, but no sale can be set aside unless the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by such irregularity or fraud and money can be refunded to the auction purchaser and at the same time if the applicant could not have taken objection on or before proclamation of sale so drawn, no such application can be entertained.) 5. In the instant case, the decree is dated 25.1.86 and on earlier occasion on 20.4.89 on the objections, the sale of oil mill was set aside on 16.9.89 and the money was refunded and the case was remanded back with a direction to give an opportunity to judgment debtor petitioner to furnish relevant map, documents along with the valuation report, so that the same may be appended with the proclamation, but despite that he has not taken such steps and this time respondent No. 2 Bhanwarlal has given higher bid and has deposited Rs. 2,07,000/- with the bank and now the petitioner wants to get sale declared void by raising some objections, which were raised on earlier occasion. 2,07,000/- with the bank and now the petitioner wants to get sale declared void by raising some objections, which were raised on earlier occasion. As per decision of Supreme Court in Dhirendranath Sabalchandranath Saha v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh (supra), the sale is according to law and the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise objection with a view to delay the proceedings for the one reason or the other. The Court has also observed that he has not filed any affidavit of independent person nor he was prepared to take the property himself. He has not been able to satisfy the Court that how he was prejudiced by the sale on the basis of under valuation nor he has availed the opportunity in spite of remand. It is true that legal point which goes to the route of the cause can be raised at any stage provided it does not realise investigation of fact and as discussed above sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but the could not avail the same, thus the decree- holder cannot be deprived of decretal amount as per decree passed in his favour in the year 1986. In view of this case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not helpful to the appellant. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 6. In the result, this appeal has no force, and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******