R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) BY the court. The petitioners are before this court challenging the order date 24. 6. 1999, Annexure-H in appeal No. 1/97-98, passed by the deputy registrar of co-operative society, bellary. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS are the joint purchaser of the property in an auction sale conducted by the respondent. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 5. The taluk agricultural produce marketing society ltd. , (for short tapmsl) obtained loan from the bellary district central co-operative bank (for short central co-operative bank ). The tapmsl is to pay the loan obtained to respondent 4. They defaulted in payment. Respondent 4 raised a dispute and an award was passed against the society. The amount due as on April 1997 is roughly about 33, 14,403,00. Co-operative bank filed an execution petition in ep No. 2/93-94. Several properties of the society were attached and brought to sale. A resolution dt. 17. 10. 1996 was passed authorising the president of respondent 5 to attend authorising the president of respondent 5 to attend the sale proceedings in terms of Annexure a. Sale proclamation was issued proposing to hold public auction on 31. 5. 1997 in terms of Annexure c. Proclamation was published by beat of torn torn and on the notice board of taluk office. A copy of the endorsement is at annexures d 1 and d2. The value of the property was ascertained through the tahsildar, which is produced at Annexure d3. Copy of the notice in form No. 8 and 9 under Rule 29 and 38 issued to respondent 5 is produced at annexures d4 and d5. Sale was effected on 31. 5. 1997. There were in all eight bidders. Petitioners participated as joint bidders. The highest bid of the petitioner at Rs. 5. 51 lakhs was accepted. It appears certain other properties of the bank were also auctioned. Society in the meeting held on 26. 6. 1998 passed a resolution requesting the respondent 1 and 2 to confirm the sale expeditiously for the purpose of remittence in terms of Annexure e. After the acceptance of the bid the petitioners deposited the entire amount. A sale was confirmed in terms of Annexure f. It was also published in the gazette. An intimation to the sub registrar was also sent. After all these proceedings were over the incharge officer filed an appeal on 6. 10. A sale was confirmed in terms of Annexure f. It was also published in the gazette. An intimation to the sub registrar was also sent. After all these proceedings were over the incharge officer filed an appeal on 6. 10. 1997 challenging the confirmation of sale before respondent 2. Respondent 2 has set aside the sale and hence this petition is filed by the auction purchasers. ( 4 ) SRI jaykumar patil, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and Sri shantesh gureddi, is the counsel appearing or respondent 5, and Sri murlidar, learend government Advocate is appearing for the state. ( 5 ) MR. Jaykumar paul, vehemently contends before me that the impugned order requires my interference. He has referred to various documents to contend that no case is made out in terms of the rules warranting any interference. All the procedures as prescribed in law according to counsel have been completely followed in the case on hand. He states that for no fault of the petitioners, the petitioners are suffering on account of the order passed by respondent 2. Counsel also refers to material facts to contend that the society itself has passed a resolution seeking for confirmation of sale. In conclusion counsel wants the order to be set aside. ( 6 ) PER contra counsel for the society contends before me that compa- ratively speaking the value offered by the petitioners are for below than the expected sale value. He contends that the required procedure is not followed in the case on hand. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the counsel I have carefully perused material placed before this court. ( 8 ) IN the impugned order the authority in a detailed order has accepted the plea of the society on the ground that the notice has not been properly served on the secretary. The authority has also noticed that the sale value comparatively speaking is lower and the notice does not give 30 days time. It is also stated that the petitioner 1 happened to be the brother of the president in the case on hand. ( 9 ) THE Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act provides for framing of the rules in terms of the powers conferred under the act. Rules framed are known as Karnataka co-operative rules 1960. Rule 38 provides for attachment of sale of immovable property. ( 9 ) THE Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act provides for framing of the rules in terms of the powers conferred under the act. Rules framed are known as Karnataka co-operative rules 1960. Rule 38 provides for attachment of sale of immovable property. It provides for a detailed procedure with regard to sale of property. A reading of this Rule would show that the Rule is almost on the same lines as per the rules in the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to attachment and sale of property. In the case on hand it is seen that the society itself has passed a resolution in terms of Annexure a and in it is made clear that the president is authorised with regard to auction sale. Similarly, sufficient publicity has been given and it is thereafter the sale has been conducted. Parties have participated. The society is aware of the proceedings and has not chosen to raise any objection whatsoever at any point of time except raising objection after confirmation of the sale. ( 10 ) IN the light of these admitted facts I am of the view that the registrar has committed an error in failing to appreciate the material requirement in terms of Rule 38 of the rules. Rule 38 provides for an interference of the sale on the ground of material irregularities or mistake or fraud in establishing it. It further provides that unless an applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of mistake or fraud, no sale can be set aside on the ground of mistake. In the case on hand on the material facts I am satisfied that no substantial injury, assuming that there is some irregularity, is caused to society. Society itself has authorised its president to participate in the proceedings. That being so the subsequent objection of a defective notice in favour of secretary cannot be said to be a material irregularity causing any substantial injury in terms of the rules. Even otherwise from the material placed before this court in particular, the recent resolution would show that the society is more keen on setting the loan expendability, since it is unable to pay entire loan to the bank. Even otherwise from the material placed before this court in particular, the recent resolution would show that the society is more keen on setting the loan expendability, since it is unable to pay entire loan to the bank. In fact society has passed a resolution stating that the sale may be confirmed in terms of Annexure e. They have also stated that they are unable to make any payment and therefore a confirmation has to take place. In the light of annexures a and e the finding of the registrar with regard to sale being bad in law in terms of r 38 cannot be accepted. Moreover sufficient publicity has been given and thereafter the sale has taken place subsequently it is confirmed. ( 11 ) TAKING into consideration an overall view of the matter I am of the view that the petitioners are right in their contention that the impugned order runs counter to Rule 38 and also to the material facts on record. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances the impugned order is set aside, I have also during the proceedings questioned the counsel for the respondent as to whether they can obtain a better offer now or whether they can pay the amount to the petitioner. The answer is No. Society is not in a very healthy position on the financial aspect of the matter. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta V. N. L. Anand and rajinder singh, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 131 : 1993 AIR SCW 3458, has ruled that there is always a considerable difference between the court sale price and the market price. The court sale is forced sale notwithstanding the competitive element of a public auction, the best price is always not forthcoming. Mere inadequacy of price cannot demolish a court sale. This judgment answers the objection of inadequate price. ( 14 ) IN the very same judgment in para 17 the Supreme Court insisted upon a proof and the substantial injury in these matters. At page 150 (of scc) : (atp 3473 of air) the apex court rules as under :"it is true that there is distinction between mere irregularity and material irregularities and the sale is not liable to be set aside on proof of mere irregularity. At page 150 (of scc) : (atp 3473 of air) the apex court rules as under :"it is true that there is distinction between mere irregularity and material irregularities and the sale is 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. " ( 15 ) IN the instant case there is no substantial injury in terms of the rules. Recently the Madras High Court in the case of a. Paruatham V. Bank of Baroda, AIR 2000 Madras 326 has considered various judgments and finally rules in para 9 as under :"it is clear from order 21, Rule 90 that on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale the person affected can approach the court to set aside the sale. However, as per clause (2) of Rule 90 he has to establish that the sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity of fraud. Likewise as per clause (3) if such person and occasion to raise objections before the date of proclamation and failed to raise the same, he cannot be allowed to raise such objection after proclamation of sale was drawn up. " ( 16 ) I have recently after noticing all these judgments in the case of Rana Enterprises V. State Bank of Mysore in 3385/2000 ruled that unless substantial injury is caused by reason of irregularity or fraud, sale cannot be set aside. In the case on hand material facts reveal that no substantial injury is caused in terms of the law governing these facts. ( 17 ) IN these circumstances respectfully following the ruling of the apex court this petition is allowed. Annexure h is set aside. Parties are directed to proceed further in the matter in confirmation of sale. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .