Judgment :- 1. Both these Revisions arise against a common Judgment in C.M.A. Nos. 331 and 332 of 1985, on the file of District Judge, Salem. 2. Pending disposal of the Revisions, first respondent in C.R.P. 1791 of 1989 died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5. 3. Relevant facts may be stated as follows:— Insolvency proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioner in I.A. No. 98 of 1984 in I.P. No. 2 of 1972. The insolvents properties were taken over by the Official Receiver. The subject matter of these proceedings were sold by the Official Receiver in public auction on 27-2-1984 for a sum of Rs. 30,500/-. Petitioner was the bidder in whose name the sale was confirmed. After the sale, the insolvents son filed I.A. 98 of 1984 (supra), for setting aside the sale. A similar application was filed by a creditor of the insolvent in I.A. 99 of 1984. In both these Applications, they contended that the property had been sold for a low price. There was no notice to all the creditors. The value of the property will be much more than the amount for which it was sold to the petitioner, and the entire procedure adopted by the Receiver is against Rules. 4. In the objection taken by the petitioner, he contended that the insolvents son is not a person aggrieved and, therefore, incompetent to file the application. He further contended that the sale has taken place after following all the procedures and he has purchased it for the real value representing the property at that time, and even if the value is less, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the sale. It is the contention of the petitioner that in an auction by the Receiver, many risks will have to be taken by the bidder and the same cannot be equated with a sale that takes place between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. 5. On the above Petitions, the Insolvency Court took oral and documentary evidence. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents including the petitioner in I.A. 99 of 1984. The auction purchaser got himself examined as P.W. I. Exs. 5. On the above Petitions, the Insolvency Court took oral and documentary evidence. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents including the petitioner in I.A. 99 of 1984. The auction purchaser got himself examined as P.W. I. Exs. A-1 to A-4 were also marked to show that notice had not been properly served on various creditors and also to prove the market value during the relevant time. The Insolvency Court was of the view that the insolvents son is not an aggrieved person, and no grounds have been made out for setting aside the sale. The Insolvency Court was of the view that if the insolvent himself is not a person aggrieved, his son can never claim as a person aggrieved merely because he happened to be a member of the undivided family. The Insolvency Court was of the view that the respondents herein have failed to point out the Rule by which notice for a period is to be given, or the procedure which has to be adopted by the Official Receiver. It was of the view that no irregularities have been proved. The petitions were dismissed. 6. Against that Order, to Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were filed, namely, C.M.A. 331 and 332 of 1995, respectively against the order passed in I.A. 98 of 1984 and I.A. 99 of 1984 in I.P. 2 of 1972. 7. By a common judgment, the lower Appellate Court came to a different conclusion. It held that both the persons are aggrieved persons, and they have locus standi to file applications to set aside the sale. It further came to the conclusion that all the Rules framed by this Court were flouted by the Receiver, and the value of the property will be much more if only the Receiver had adjourned the sale for which he has got ample powers. It also held that there was collusion on the part of the insolvent, purchaser and the Receiver, and that was the reason for the property being sold for a very low price. Accordingly, the sale was set aside. 8. It is against the common judgment, these Revisions have been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the applicants are not aggrieved persons and they cannot put forward a claim as is now put forward. Accordingly, the sale was set aside. 8. It is against the common judgment, these Revisions have been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the applicants are not aggrieved persons and they cannot put forward a claim as is now put forward. He supported the order of the Insolvency Court wherein it was held that even the insolvent is not an aggrieved person by the action of the Receiver, and, therefore, his son could not be treated as an aggrieved person. I do not think, the submission of learned counsel for the revision petitioner could be accepted. Under the Insolvency Law, a Receiver is appointed for the benefit of the creditors. If a property is sold for lesser price, the person who is affected is the entire body of creditors. In that respect, the applicant in I.A. 99 of 1984, who is admittedly a creditor, can be said to be an aggrieved person. According to him, both these applicants can bring to the notice of the Court about the mistake or irregularity committed by the Receiver, and the Court is bound to rectify the mistake committed by its Officer. 10. In a very early decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1914 Calcutta 885 (Hanseswar Ghose v. Rakhal Das Ghose) a Division Bench of that Court held thus:— “when a Receiver has been appointed, he becomes an officer of the Court, and if he is about to act in excess of his authority, it is competent even to a stranger to bring that fact to the notice of the Court, which has inherent power to review the conduct of the receiver and to make an appropriate order so that the stranger may not be prejudiced by an unlawful act of its own officer, for this purpose, the Court may hold a summary inquiry”. 11. In A.I.R. 1920 Lahore 361 (Data Ram v. Deoki Nandan), it was held thus:— “The conduct of an Official Receiver in any particular respect may be brought to the notice of the Court by any person with a view to having the receivers act or decision, in any particular matter reversed or modified, it is not merely the insolvent or the creditors or any aggrieved person who can take action in this respect. A Courthas inherent power to rectify the errors or mistakes of a receiver or to reverse or modify his acts or decisions, and in such a case the time limit prescribed by S. 22 would be no bar to action being taken by the Court.” 12. Both the above decisions were followed by our High Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1946 Madras 89 (Khasim Sahib v. Official Receiver, Guntur) wherein this Court held thus:— “The Court has inherent power to take action when it is brought to its notice, that an act of one of its officers is objectionable. Even a stranger can bring the fact to the notice of the Court.” 13. In this case, the applicant in I.A. 99. of 1984 could not be treated as a stranger. He being a creditor is interested in seeing that all the assets of the insolvent are properly sold for proper price. If, by collusion or by some irregularity, the property of the insolvent is sold for a very low price, the applicant will be seriously affected, for, he will not be getting proper dividend. In regard to the insolvents son also, it cannot be said that he has interest or that he is not an aggrieved person. He being a member of joint family, if the insolvents property is sold for proper price and if there is any surplus, the share of the applicant in I.A. 98 of, 1984 also will be more. At any rate, both the applicants have only brought to the notice of the Court an irregularity committed by an Officer of Court, and the Court, with its inherent power, has to rectify the defect. It is settled law that no act of Court can injure a person. The first contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 14. In regard to the irregularity alleged to have been committed during the course of sale, that is a question of fact. This Revision has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not argue that the lower Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or did not exercise the discretion vested in it. 15. On available materials, lower Appellate Court has held that the procedure adopted by the Receiver was not proper. It is seen from the evidence that notices were sent by certificate of posting to the creditors. 15. On available materials, lower Appellate Court has held that the procedure adopted by the Receiver was not proper. It is seen from the evidence that notices were sent by certificate of posting to the creditors. Whether all of them have been served or not, and that too at the proper time, is not clear. At any rate, so far as P.W. 1 is concerned, he has received the notice only on the day when the sale was to be conducted. That is not sufficient notice in law. The lower Appellate Court has expressed its own doubts whether there was proper proclamation also. Apart from the same, the lower Appellate Court has also taken into consideration Exs. A-2 and A-3 to come to the conclusion that the property was sold for a very low price. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the applicants themselves have said that the value of the property will be Rs. 40,000/-, and the property has been sold for Rs. 30,000/-, and the difference is only Rs. 10,000/-. The argument of the learned counsel is fallacious. The difference of Rs. 10,000/- is in the total price of Rs. 40,000/-. That means, 1/4th of the value is lost. That will be a great prejudice to the body of creditors. It has come out in evidence that there were four bidders, and it was the petitioner who bid at the auction for Rs. 30,500/-. Under the Insolvency Act, a sale by Receiver cannot be equated to that of a Court sale. It is always open to the Receiver to reserve for himself the right to adjourn the sale without assigning any reason. If he feels that there are no proper bidders, he could simply adjourn the same and issue notice of the same to the creditors and give proper publication for the sale. Instead of adopting that procedure by selling the property on the very same day, and that too for a low price, a doubt is created. By such an act of the Court, an injury has been done to the body of creditors. When the Court is the custodian of the properties, and by the action of an officer of the Court, an injury is caused to the body of creditors, a duty is cast on the Court to rectify the mistake. By such an act of the Court, an injury has been done to the body of creditors. When the Court is the custodian of the properties, and by the action of an officer of the Court, an injury is caused to the body of creditors, a duty is cast on the Court to rectify the mistake. In other words, the Court can set aside the sale. This is what the Court has done in this case. 16. In the decision reported in A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1141 (Srinivasa Naicker v. Engammal), their Lordships considered the grounds on which the Receivers sale could be set aside. At page 1143 of the Reports, it was held thus:— “It may be accepted that the power of the Court under Section 68 is not hedged in by those considerations which apply in cases of auction sales in execution proceedings. Even so, the power under Section 68 is a judicial power and must be exercised in well recognised principles, justifying interference with an act of the receiver, which he is empowered to do under Section 59(a) of the Act. The fact that the act of the receiver in selling properties under Section 59(a) is subject to the control of the Court under Section 68 does not mean that the Court can arbitrarily set aside a sale decided upon by the Official Receiver. It is true that the Court has to look in insolvency Proceedings to the interest in the first place of the general body of creditors; in the second place, to the interest of the insolvent, and lastly, where sale has been decided upon by the Official Receiver, to the interest of the intending purchaser, in that order. Even so, the decision of the official Receiver in favour of a sale should not be set aside unless there are good grounds for interfering with the discretion exercised by the official Receiver. These grounds may be wider than the grounds envisaged, in auction sales in execution proceedings. Even so, there must be judicial grounds on which the Court will act in setting aside the sale decided upon by the Official Receiver. These grounds may be wider than the grounds envisaged, in auction sales in execution proceedings. Even so, there must be judicial grounds on which the Court will act in setting aside the sale decided upon by the Official Receiver. These grounds may be, for example, that there was fraud or collusion between the receiver and the insolvent or the intending purchaser; the Court may also interfere if it is of opinion that there were irregularities in the conduct of the sale which might have affected the price fetched at the sale; again even though there may be no collusion, fraud or irregularity, the price fetched may still be so low as to justify the Court to hold that the property should not be sold at that price. These grounds and similar other grounds depending upon particular circumstances of each case may justify a Court in interfering with the act of the Official Receiver in the case of a sale by him under Section 59(a) of the Act.” The said decision was followed by our High Court in the decision reported in 1974-II-M.L.J. page 303 (Narayanan v. Kannabiran Mudaliar and another), wherein a learned Judge of this Court (S. Maharajan, J.) has held thus:— “Under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the sale by an Official Receiver should not be set aside unless there are good grounds for interfering with the discretion exercised by the Official Receiver. The Court must act on judicial grounds in setting aside the sale. The grounds on which the sale may be set aside are fraud, collusion between the Receiver and the insolvent or the intending purchaser, and irregularities in the conduct of sale. Though there may be no collusion or fraud, even then the sale can be set aside on the ground that the sale is for low price.” (emphasis supplied) 17. In order to rectify the injury caused to the general body of creditors, the lower Appellate Court has set aside the sale by the Official Receiver. The petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, though he is a purchaser from the Official Receiver. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court is, therefore, correct, and it does not call for any interference. 18. In the result, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.