JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents hence only arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners were heard. 2. Petitioner No. 1 Shanti Devi is auction purchaser in a Court sale, which was held on 1.12.1978. The sale was confirmed on 2.1.1979. On the same date i.e. 2.1.1979 legal representatives of judgment debtor (JD) Nain Singh respondents 3 to 6 filed objections against the sale under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C The said objections were registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1979 on the file of Munsif Mahaban, Mathura. The learned Munsif rejected the objections through order dated 13.11.1984. Against the said order contesting respondents filed Misc. Appeal No. 155 of 1984, which was allowed by District Judge, Mathura on 27.5.1985 and auction sale was set aside. This writ petition by auction purchaser is directed against the said appellate order. 3. The decree in execution of which auction sale in question took place, was passed in a suit filed by Ram Gopal against Nain Singh predecessor-in-interest of contesting respondents. Smt. Shanti Devi petitioner No.1 wife of Ram Gopal purchased the property in question. Later on Ram Gopal died leaving behind petitioners No. as his legal representatives. Suit was decreed ex-parte on 14.2.1971. In auction sale 1/5 share of Nain Singh in agricultural land admeasuring 15.75 acre was sold for Rs. 3025/- (1/5 of 15.75 comes to 3.15). 4. The main thrust of the objection was that the judgment debtor had no knowledge of the execution proceedings and auction sale and he came to know about the auction sale for the first time on 14.12.1978. It was further alleged that the valuation of the property was at least Rs. 35,000/-. 5. The learned Munsif while rejecting the objections had also held that objections were not maintainable as requisite amount of 12.5 per cent of sale money was not deposited along with objections (as required by Allahabad High Court Amendment to Order 21 Rule 90, CPC). Appellate Court held that before the decision of objections, the said amount had been deposited, and in view of Division Bench authority of this Court in Kundan Lal v. J.N.Sharma, 1962 ALJ 574, such deposit was sufficient. Appellate Court held that before the decision of objections, the said amount had been deposited, and in view of Division Bench authority of this Court in Kundan Lal v. J.N.Sharma, 1962 ALJ 574, such deposit was sufficient. The authority cited by the auction purchaser in R.H.C. Jung v. Agricultural Bank, 1982 ALJ 749, being authority of Single Judge was not followed by the learned District Judge. In fact the later authority is not inconsistent with the earlier authority. In the later authority only this much has been held that Allahabad amendment is not abrogated by 1976 amendment of C.P.C. 6. On merit the appellate Court started its judgment from para 5 in the following manner : “Besides a clear circumstance in favour of appellant is that his 1/6 share in 15.15 acres irrigated land was sold and purchased by the wife of the decree holder herself for petty sum of Rs. 3025/-." 7. It is settled position of law that mere inadequacy of consideration is no ground to set-aside the auction sale vide R. Singh v. R. Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2220 . In any case the price fetched in auction cannot be said to be shocking. It is seldom possible to fetch adequate price in Court auctions which are surrounded by possibility of lot of litigation and consequent delay in delivery of possession even if sale is not set-aside vide Kayjay India v. A. Drums, AIR 1974 SC 1331 . 8. There appears to be slight confusion in the total area of the land and share of judgment debtor therein. 9. The appellate Court further held in para 5 that “it appears from the evidence on record that if at all any auction sale was actually held in this case it was held in the village and bidders were required to reach the land to be sold and as such grave irregularity was committed by the Amin in holding the same in the village”. Appellate Court concluded that due to this irregularity proper bidders could not participate in the auction. Only four persons participated in the auction. Appellate Court concluded that due to this irregularity proper bidders could not participate in the auction. Only four persons participated in the auction. The Supreme Court in a recent authority of S. Khan v. M. Yusuf Uddin, AIR 2006 SC 1871 has held that merely establishing material irregularity or fraud will not be sufficient to set-aside the sale and it must further be shown that irregularity or fraud has resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. It has also been held that even if the applicant had suffered substantial injury this could not be sufficient to set the sale aside unless substantial injury has been occasioned by the material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. In para 14 of the said authority, it has also been held that the charge of fraud or material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90 must be specifically made with sufficient particulars. The Supreme Court quoted Order 21 Rule 54(2), C.P.C. according to which order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property. The Supreme Court further held that even if it was assumed that there was irregularity it did not result in any substantial injury to the judgment debtor. The argument that due to irregularity less price was fetched was rejected on the ground that no material was brought before the Court in respect of the said plea (Para 16). In the instant case also no reliable material was brought on record to suggest that the price fetched in the auction was highly inadequate. 10. Accordingly, in my opinion there was no irregularity or illegality in conducting the sale. Even if it is assumed that there was any illegality it did not result in any substantial injury to the judgment debtor. 11. Accordingly impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 12. However while granting relief to the petitioners, writ Court is empowered to pass such order, which may be necessary to adjust the equities in between the parties. 13. Accordingly, petitioner No. 1 is directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the contesting respondents who are legal representatives of Judgment Debtor. 14. Consequently writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set-side and order passed by the trial Court is restored on the condition that within six months from today, petitioner No. 1 shall deposit Rs. 30,000/- to the contesting respondents who are legal representatives of Judgment Debtor. 14. Consequently writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the appellate Court is set-side and order passed by the trial Court is restored on the condition that within six months from today, petitioner No. 1 shall deposit Rs. 30,000/- before the trial Court for immediate payment to contesting respondents. If the said amount is not deposited within six months then this order shall stand automatically vacated and writ petition shall stand dismissed. Amount must be deposited in the form of draft drawn in favour of any of the contesting respondents. 15. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. ———