JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: The aforesaid two appeals have been taken up and heard together arising as they do out of a common order dated 25.11.1991 of the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan dismissing the objection petitions under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants-decree holders and judgment debtors against the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the respondents-auction purchasers Sh. Onkar : Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh Shah. Appeal No. FAO (Ord) 165 of 1992 has been filed by Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, Decree-holder-Objector and appellants Sh. Udey Gupta and Smt Rakhi Gupta are the Judgment -debtors-objectors in FAO No. 3 of 1993. In both the appeals same and similar questions of facts and law are involved, they would stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The relevant facts necessary for deciding these appeals may be stated as under:- The suit of appellant-Financial Corporation was decreed by the Court against the judgment-debtors M/s. Himachal Shoddy Mills Ltd. and others for the recovery of loan amount Execution petition under Sec. 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 came to be filed by the appellant- Corporation against the judgment -debtors in the Court of District Judge, Sinn our District at Nahan. Sh. N. A. Sheikh, Advocate was appointed as Court Auctioner by the Court for conducting auction of the property of judgment- debtors consisting of premises of M/s. Shoddy Mills Ltd. Paonta Sahib, measuring 11-19 bighas and the entire machinery of the unit The Court auctioner issued proclamation of sale in two news papers and the auction was fixed for 26.12.1990 at site from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The reasonable price of the aforesaid property was estimated at Rs. 36,11,220/-. The Court Auctioner held the auction on the scheduled date and sold the mortgaged property for Rs. 12,14,000/- in favour of auctioner purchasers S/Shri Onkar Singh and Narinder Singh and submitted his report to the learned District Judge. The decree-holder-judgment-debtors -appellants herein filed objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC against the sale of the property. 36,11,220/-. The Court Auctioner held the auction on the scheduled date and sold the mortgaged property for Rs. 12,14,000/- in favour of auctioner purchasers S/Shri Onkar Singh and Narinder Singh and submitted his report to the learned District Judge. The decree-holder-judgment-debtors -appellants herein filed objection petition under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC against the sale of the property. The appellant-Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation averred in its objection petition that the sale by public auction was conducted after the fixed hours i.e. at 3.30 pm and was concluded by 4 pm though the auction was fixed and was to be conducted between 11 am to 3 pm as per the sale notice. It was stated mat the appellant-decree -holder will suffer substantial injury because one of the highest bidder respondent Sh Narinder Singh Shah is the real brother of Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, who represented the judgment-debtors-appellants. It was also pleaded that the value of the property was assessed through Local Commissioner at Rs. 36,11,220/-in the year 1989 and the loan outstanding recoverable including the interest was Rs. 92,45,209.51 paise up to 31.5.1990 against the judgment-debtors -appellants and that the property had been sold in public auction at a very nominal price. It was also further pleaded that the bidders who were present at the time of auction were debarred and dissuaded by Sh. A. S. Shah, Advocate, from giving bids by making propaganda that the State Government will not grant permission for purchase of the property by the non-agriculturist and the auction amount will remain blocked and thus no bidder was ready to participate in the auction. It was thus alleged that one of the auction purchaser is the real brother of Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, and in order to help him, he made false propaganda so that other persons could not give bid and the property could be purchased in auction by his brother at a nominal price. In his objection petition, the original judgment debtor Sh. Rajinder Gupta, whose legal representatives are appellants herein in the second appeal pleaded that the Court appointed Sh. I.C. Gupta as a Commissioner to know the details of the property to be auctioned who submitted his report on 7.4.1984. The appellant -decree- holder had given estimated valuation on 15.6.1984 at Rs. 13,43,000/-, whereas the judgment-debtors had submitted their estimated valuation on 18.7.1984 at Rs. 64,24,956/-. I.C. Gupta as a Commissioner to know the details of the property to be auctioned who submitted his report on 7.4.1984. The appellant -decree- holder had given estimated valuation on 15.6.1984 at Rs. 13,43,000/-, whereas the judgment-debtors had submitted their estimated valuation on 18.7.1984 at Rs. 64,24,956/-. It was further pleaded that in the earlier auction held on 28.11.1987 the highest bidder was Sh. Onkar Singh who is now one of the auction purchasers-and the sale in his favour was set -aside and the property was handed-over back to the judgment-debtors through their counsel Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate. 3. The judgment debtors also placed that -they were being represented by Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, who did not object to the price now fetched at the time of auction of the property. They also pleaded that the property was valued by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court at Rs. 36,11,220/- which was mentioned in the proclamation published in the newspapers but the property had been sold for Rs, 12,14,000/- only and this inadequate price had caused serious prejudice to the judgment-debtors. They had also pleaded that actual auction was started by the Court Auctioneer after the fixed hours and was concluded hurriedly by 4 PM and thus many purchasers were dceprived of by giving highest bid. Objections were also taken that their counsel had dissuaded the bidders saying mat they would face difficulties in getting sanction from the State Government in case of their bid being accepted for the reason that they were non-agriculturists. 4. Reply to the objection petitions were filed by respondents-auction-purchasers and on the controversial pleading of the parties, the Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether die sale by public auction held on 26.12.1990 is liable to be set aside on the grounds of material irregularity, collusive, fraud and inadequacy of price as alleged in the objection petitions? Op. Objectors. 2. Relief. 5. The appellant-Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation has examined two witnesses, namely, Sh. Mehar Singh, Junior Manager and Sh. Darshan Singh one of the persons who participated in the public auction, whereas appellants-judgment-debtors examined no witness in support of their objections. One of the auction-purchasers, namely, Onkar Singh-appeared as RW-1 and both the respondents -auction-purchasers also examined Sh. Nanak Chand. The executing Court dismissed "both the objection petitions of the appellants and the sale held by the Court auctioneer was confirmed. One of the auction-purchasers, namely, Onkar Singh-appeared as RW-1 and both the respondents -auction-purchasers also examined Sh. Nanak Chand. The executing Court dismissed "both the objection petitions of the appellants and the sale held by the Court auctioneer was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred these two appeals in this Court challenging the correctness and validity of the order of the executing Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants have pressed before us three points, namely :- (i) that the sale was not held at the proper time i.e. 11 AM to 3 PM, fixed by the Court auctioneer in public notice and that in fact it commenced at 3.30 PM and was-finished within half an hour, (ii) that Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate who was representing the appellant judgment debtor present on the spot and was dissuading the persons who participated in the bid proclaiming that the State Govt., will not permit purchase of the land by any non-agriculturist and the auction amount will remain blocked and thus due to this wrong signed given to bidders, no bidder was ready to participate in the auction and ultimately one of the auction purchasers, who is the real brother of Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, purchased the property at a very nominal price; and (iii) the factory premises had remained closed and the auction purchasers could not see the area of the factory, as the Court auctioneer reached at the spot at about.3.30 p.m. and finished the auction by 4 p.m. selling out the property approximately at l/3rd price of Rs. 36,11,220/- which vas fixed in the auction notices and that the said sale suffered from material irregularity which caused substantial injury to the appellants and was, therefore, liable to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel cited a number of decision in support of their contentions. In Rukhinee Bullubh v. Brojonath Sircar, (1879-80) ILR 5 Cal 309, it has been observed that the use, at a sale, of language by an intending bidder in disparagement of the property for the purpose of influencing by standers, and deterring them from bidding for the property, is a "material irregularity, sufficient to render the sale invalid. In Duta Ram v. Punjab National Bank Limited, Multan (1936) 38 Pun. In Duta Ram v. Punjab National Bank Limited, Multan (1936) 38 Pun. LR 515, it was observed that the officer who was to conduct the sale reached the spot at 12 Oclock instead of at 10 a.m. with the result that the intending bidders departed after waiting, the sale could not be to have been properly and regularly conducted. Further it was said that when the intending bidders departed, it followed that there was no proper competition it bidding and the property would naturally he sold at an inadequate price. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the auction of the property was set aside. In Sri Raja Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu v. Sri Raja Bommadevara Venkatrayulu Naidu Bahadur Zemindar Guru, AIR 1945 PC 178, it was held that: "In order to set inside a sale under Order 21, R. 90, it should be proved that there war material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, and that the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. Mere irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale will not entitled the Court to set aside, unless upon the facts proved the Com is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantia1 injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. Upon the language of the proviso to 0.21, R.90, as it now stands, that is required in that the Court should be satisfied that the applicant has suffered substantial injury by reason of material irregularity or fraud, and if the Court is so satisfied from the facts proved ,then the applicant may be Sad t^ have discharged his burden. This burden may be discharged not only by direct evidence connecting the material irregularity or fraud with the substantial injury, out also by circumstantial evidence, that is evidence from which a reasonable inference m ay be drawn that the substantial injury was the result of the material irregularity or fraud . 9. In M/s. Hotel Nataraj v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, AIR 1989 Kant 90, the learned single Judge of the High Court held that grievance as to illegalities in holding auction sale and as to inadequacy of price fetched, the powers of the High Court is sufficiently plenary to pass any appropriate order under sub-section (9) of Section 32 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. In Pannalal Singhai v. Firm Hasan Dada, AIR 1939 Nagpur 258, the Court has held that the difference between an irregularity and an illegality is one of degree. An irregularity of so serious, a nature as to render impossible the publicity which affords some main security for fairness of public sales must beseemed 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 likely that intending bidders relying on the proclamation would not turn up until too late, and in such a case, therefore, the Court can set aside the sale on its own initiative. In Annapurna Industries v. Syndicate Bank, AIR 1993 Kant 279, the learned single Judge held that in auction sale involved an industrial land with building and machinery fetched l/3rd of its valuation only and accepted the same as the highest price offered by the bidder, such sale was liable to be annulled. In Desk Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anahd, 1993 AIR SCW 3458 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that non-application of mind to the question whether sale of apart of the property would satisfy the decree debt was a material irregularity doing substantial injury to the appellant attracting Order 21, Rule 90 and in either case the sale was liable to be set aside. It was further observed that there was distinction between mere irregularity and material irregularity and the sale was not liable to be set aside on proof of mere irregularity. It must be material irregularity and the Court must be satisfied that on account thereof substantial injury was sustained by the appellant. In the case, the sale of 550 sq. yards for recovery of a paltry sum of Rs. 7,780.33, without selling a portion thereof, caused substantial injury to the appellant-judgment-debtor. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the respondents- auction -purchasers has contended that in the present case the mortgaged property was twice sold on the earlier occasion by public auction and no objections were filed by the appellants against an adequate price of the property. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the respondents- auction -purchasers has contended that in the present case the mortgaged property was twice sold on the earlier occasion by public auction and no objections were filed by the appellants against an adequate price of the property. The appellants-judgment debtors have colluded with the appellant-Financial Corporation and had simply filed the objections against the sale of mortgaged property without leading evidence to substantiate their objections despite opportunities granted to them by the executing Court. The executing Court has not fixed up-set price of the property and the value of Rs. 3 6,11,220/-was fixed as reasonable price and thus, the Court auctioneer sold the property to the highest bidder and thereby no material irregularity has been shown to have been committed by him in conducting the auction sale. He next contended that if the auction was not conducted in accordance with scheduled time it was a mere irregularity and not material irregularity causing injury to the appellants, therefore, mere irregularity will not annul the sale in the present case He also contended that in the present case the sale took place in 1990 for Rs. 12.14.000/-and in all probabilities, now the property will not fetch more value as the corporation will get about Rs; 25 lacs including the interest accruing on the sale price if the sale is upheld in the present case. According to the learned counsel, keeping in view the time factor, the property has been sold and fetched adequate price which could riot otherwise be fetched in the year 1990. He further sic that the appellants have not proved that they suffered substantial injury by leading cogent and convincing evidence and the sale may not be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Laxmi Devi Mukand Kanwar, AIR 1965 SC 834. In that case, the Apex Court has held as under (para 10):- "It is true that before an application made under 0.21, R.90 can succeed, the applicant has to show that the impugned sale was vitiated by a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it, and as required by the proviso, it is also necessary that he should show that in consequence of the said irregularity or fraud, he had sustained substantial injury. But where substantial injury is alleged to be implicit in the material irregularity set out in the application it would be too technical to hold that the application should be dismissed on the preliminary ground that no specific or express averment has been made as to substantial injury suffered by the applicant" 11. In Radhey Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2337, the Apex Court observed that in order to set aside the auction sale mere proof of a material irregularity and inadequacy of price realised in such a sale, is not sufficient. What has to be established is that there was only inadequacy of the price but that inadequacy was caused by reason of the material irregularity or fraud. A connection has thus to be established between the inadequacy of the price and the material irregularity. 12. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd., AIR 1974 SC 1331, Putti Kondala Rao v. Vellamanchili Sitarattamma, AIR 1976 SC 737, Jaswant Lai Natvar Lai Thakkar v. Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala, AIR 1991 SC 770, Sakharlal Jamnadas v. Pirojsha Sorabji Patel, AIR 1936 Bom 315, M/s Bajwa and Company v. M/s. Keshaw Rai Naresh Pal Singh, (1989) 2 Rev LR130 (Punj & Har) and Hira Bai v. Hanumantha Krishnaji Bhide, 1996 AIR SCW 4113. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for die parties and the well settled proposition of law in the above referred decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. 14. In the present case we have the positive evidence of two witnesses, one of whom is Sh. Mehar Singh, Junior Manager of the appellant-Corporation and second Sh Darshan Singh the willing auction -purchaser. OW1 Sh Mehar Singh, has stated that in accordance with the publication of the proclamation of sale, the auction was to start at 11 ajn. 14. In the present case we have the positive evidence of two witnesses, one of whom is Sh. Mehar Singh, Junior Manager of the appellant-Corporation and second Sh Darshan Singh the willing auction -purchaser. OW1 Sh Mehar Singh, has stated that in accordance with the publication of the proclamation of sale, the auction was to start at 11 ajn. to 3 p.m. but the Court Auctioneer started it at 3.30 p.m. and finished at 4 p.m. He also stated that the auction was to take place at the site of industrial unit but the gate of the factory was closed and locked till 3.15 p.m. He stated that there was no notice or intimation at the site to the bidders intimating that the auction for the sale of the property would start after the scheduled time and when the auction commenced at 3.30 pm. there was very small number of bidders left at the spot since large number of persons who wanted to give bid had already left the site of the factory. He stated that the property was sold for Rupees 12,14,000/-jointly in the names of S/Shri Narinder Singh and Onkar Singh and Sh. Narinder Singh is the real brother of Sh. A.S. Shah, who was representing appellants-judgment-debtors in the execution. He also stated that the appellant-Corporation has to realise more than one crore from the appellants- judgment-debtors and because of the inadequacy of price fetched in the said auction, the Corporation is deprived of realising the substantial amount from die judgment-debtors. He has categorically stated that at the time, of auction of the property Sh-A-S. Shah, Advocate held out a warning to the bidders that those persons who are not agriculturist in Himachal Pradesh will have to seek permission from the State Government for purchasing die properly which is very difficult bargain and till they get the permission their auction amount will remain blocked. He also stated that the Court auctioneer also did not apprise the bidders that no such problem would come in their way in case they wanted to purchase the property and thus many bidders were dissuaded by misrepresentation held out by Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate and the result was that many willing bidders/buyers had stopped for giving bid and left the site of auction. A.S. Shah, Advocate and the result was that many willing bidders/buyers had stopped for giving bid and left the site of auction. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the Court auctioneer had requested all bidders that everyone including non-agriculturist were competent to participate in the auction sale but he herein said that non-agriculturist who will purchase the property shall have to seek permission of the State Government which would be very difficulty to obtain and after hearing these words about 10-12 persons had left the site of auction. He has specifically, denied the suggestion of Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, counsel for judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2 that the bid shared about 12.30 p.m. and was concluded immediately after 3 p.m. 15. The second witness of the appellant-Corporation was Sh. Darshan Singh, who participated in the auction sale and was willing to purchase the property. He stated that the sale was held at 3.30 p.m. and concluded at 4 p.m. when the time schedule fixed was 11 am. to 3 p.m. and that the gate of the industrial unit was closed from 11 am. to 3 pm. He corroborated the version of OW1 to the extent mat there was no notice to the bidders at the unit gate that the auction sale would start late and not according to the scheduled time. He categorically stated that at the time of starting of the auction sale Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate and Sh. Nissar Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate, Court Auctioneer had said that only those persons could participate in the bid who are agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh and it would be very difficult for others to get the property registered in their names and they will block their money for many years. He also stated that Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate was present at the auction sale made be for helping his brother-auction-purchaser. He stated that he was the first bidder and offered Rs. 10 lacs at the initial stage for purchasing the property but immediately thereafter some Gundas who were in drunken condition intervened and stopped him from giving bid. In his cross-examination he stated mat he reached at the site of auction at 11 am. men at 12 p.m. and again at 3 pm. He stated that mere was no one at the site and the Court auctioneer reached at 3 pm. In his cross-examination he stated mat he reached at the site of auction at 11 am. men at 12 p.m. and again at 3 pm. He stated that mere was no one at the site and the Court auctioneer reached at 3 pm. for holding auction sale the Court auctioneer replied that keys of the factory were with Mr. Narinder Singh, auction-purchaser, who brought them at about 330 pm. He has also stated that he left the site of auction at 4 p.m. and was willing to purchase the property for Rs. 20 lacs. 16. In rebuttal the respondents -auction-purchasers examined two witnesses, namely, Onkar Singh (PW. 1) and Nanak Chand (PW.2) Sh Onkar Singh stated that he participated in the auction. He stated that he reached at the site of Shoddy Mills at 11.45 a.m. and found the gate of the factory closed. He stated that the people were coming and going through a window inside the factory gate. He also stated that the Court auctioneer Sh N A. Sheikh, Advocate met him at the factory gate who told him that he could inspect the factory, land and machinery and that the auction sale would start at 2 p.m. and thereafter it started at 2.15 p.m. He further stated that the Court, auctioneer told all the persons present at the site that everyone could participate in the auction but non-agriculturist had to seek permission from the State Government which in all probability would be given. He has said that OW 2 Sh Darshan Singh was present and participated in the auction. He categorically stated that the auction sale was concluded about 57 minutes before 3 p.m. He has admitted in his cross-examination that his co-auction purchaser Sh Narinder Singh is the real brother of Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate, who represented judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2. Second witness Nanak Chand has stated that he participated in the auction sale on 26.12.1990. He also stated that he met the Court auctioneer, who told him that auction sale would start at 2 p.m. He stated that the last bid was for Rs. 12,1 l,000£,only. He also participated in the previous auction sale along with RW Onkar Singh which was purchased by Sh Onkar Singh and later on cancelled by the Court. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Sh. 12,1 l,000£,only. He also participated in the previous auction sale along with RW Onkar Singh which was purchased by Sh Onkar Singh and later on cancelled by the Court. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate and auction-purchaser Narinder Singh Shah are residing in the same floor of their building. 17. Both these witnesses, namely, Sh Mehar Singh (OW 1) and Sh Darshan Singh (OW 2) are unanimous in deposing that a number of people came at auction site at 11 a.m. and after waiting for considerable long time, many of them left the site. According to the sale proclamation, the sale was to commence at 11 a.m. and if die Court auctioneer who was to conduct the sale reached the spot in leisurely fashion at 3.30 a.m. with the result that the intending bidders departed after waiting, the sale cannot be said to have been legally, regularly and properly conducted. When the intending bidders departed, it followed that there was no proper competition in bidding and the property would naturally be sold at an adequate price. The property was admittedly sold for Rs. 12,14,000/- only whereas sale price was approximately fixed at Rs. 36,11,220/- meaning thereby that the property fetched only l/3rd of the estimated price which has resulted material irregularity causing injury to the appellant-decree-holder, a public financial institution and who is to recover more than Rs. 1 crore from the appellants-judgment-debtors and the appellants-judgment-debtors could have liquidated their liability to some extent had the property been sold at the higher price. From the evidence on record we find that it was nothing but sham transaction entered into by the respondents-auction-purchasers who have obtained the property at throw-away price at the cost of public exchequer. In fact, they have purchased the property worth Rs. 37 lacs for a paltry amount of Rs. 12,14,000/- which is wholly insufficient and inadequate price for the huge property consisting of building industrial unit including the vacant land of about 10,000/- square yards located in Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour which is a prime town and one of the important industrial area in Himachal Pradesh. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that Paonta Sahib is situated on the borders of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and is also quite near to Chandigarh and most of the entrepreneurs may be willing to establish their industrial units in this town. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that Paonta Sahib is situated on the borders of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and is also quite near to Chandigarh and most of the entrepreneurs may be willing to establish their industrial units in this town. We have to consider all these factors to find out whether the Court auctioneer had acted bona fide in conducting the sale and had taken due care in conducting the sale and had taken due care in conducting the auction of the property and considered that maximum number of bidders should participate and the property be sold for most adequate price considering the value of the property. We find from the record that the Court auctioneer acted in unwholly manner without considering the factum of public interest involved as the decretal amount has to be realised by the financial institution of the State i.e. appellant-Corporation. 18. The evidence of respondents-auction-purchasers is not cogent and convincing rebutting the evidence of appellant-Corporation. It is significant to point out that what type of evidence is to be led and what should be the standard and criteria of the evidence will depend upon the facts and antecedent circumstances of each case. In the present case, as discussed above, the evidence of appellant-Corporation is more reliable and convincing than the rebuttal evidence of respondents-auction-purchasers. It is well settled law that the parties in an open auction is to get the most remunerative price of the property and it is the duty of the Court to keep sic of the auction so that the intending bidders would be free to participate and offer higher value. If that path is cut down or closed the possibility of fraud or to secure inadequate price or under -bidding would give a scope of suspension. The duties cast upon the executing Court that it has to exercise its discretion wisely and with circumstances of each case. Keeping in view the interest of the appellant-Corporation and the appellants-creditors, the executing Court was not right in exercising its discretion to confirm the sale accepting the highest bid of the auction- purchasers. The principles of law laid down by the Courts in the above cited decisions have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping in view the interest of the appellant-Corporation and the appellants-creditors, the executing Court was not right in exercising its discretion to confirm the sale accepting the highest bid of the auction- purchasers. The principles of law laid down by the Courts in the above cited decisions have to be applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. We have analysed the entire evidence on record and the well settled principles of law hereinabove referred and come to the conclusion that the appellant-Corporation has succeeded in proving that the auction sale was not conducted in accordance with the time schedule fixed in proclamation notice and it was started around 3.30 a.m. concluded by 4 p.m. It has also been proved that Sh A.S. Shah. Advocate brother of auction -purchaser Narinder Singh and Sh Nissar Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate, Court auctioneer had actively participated in dissuading the intending bidders openly saying that non-agriculturist of Himachal Pradesh could not purchase the property unless he sought permission from the State Government which was very difficult to obtain resulting in blocking of their money for a considerable long period. It has also been proved on record that the property was sold for an inadequate price which has resulted substantial loss to the appellants and thereby-material irregularity causing substantial injury to the appellant-Corporation, who is the Financial institution of the State. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the discretion exercised by the executing Court upholding the auction sale and dismissing the objection petition of the appellant is unwarranted. 19. For the above said reasons, we allow both the appeals and set aside the order of the executing Court. It is open to the respondents-auction- purchasers to get their auction sale price back along with interest accrued thereupon from the executing Court. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. CMPs are also disposed of. Order accordingly.