ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are at logger heads on the question of validity of order dated 20-02-2015 (Annexure P/6) passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12/13 whereby the order of Executing Court dated 23-01-2013 is set aside and the matter is remitted back for re-decision before the Executing Court. 2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the original decree holder was Smt. Gayatri Agrawal. The Civil Suit No. 07-A/98 was filed against the National Ginni Enterprises. The decree was passed by directing the judgment debtor to provide L.P.G. Gas as per the conditions of the agreement. If the defendants are unable to implement the aforesaid order, in alternatively it was directed that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount of Rs. 2,38,450/- + Rs. 23,500/- relating to cost of the gas cylinders and regulators respectively. The judgment debtor did not fulfil the first portion of the order and did not supply the gas cylinders and regulators, hence an execution proceeding was filed. In the said proceeding, it was decided to sell the property of judgment debtor. Accordingly, a declaration was made and property was auctioned and sold on 03-11-2011. 3. The order of Executing Court shows that in the aforesaid civil suit, an interim order of temporary injunction was passed on 18-05-1999 whereby the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. 4. The respondent No. 1/objector filed an objection before the Court below by contending that the property was purchased by him from judgment debtor on 31-08-1999. The objector is in possession of the said land. He filed an application dated 03-12-2011 under Order 21, Rule 90 r/w 151 of the CPC. The Court below after hearing both the parties on this application, passed the order dated 18-06-2014 and 23-01-2013. By order dated 23-01-2013, the application filed by the objector/respondent No. 1 under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC was rejected by the Court below. 5. The respondent No. 1 filed a miscellaneous appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Damoh which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12/13. By order dated 23-01-2013, the application filed by the objector/respondent No. 1 under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC was rejected by the Court below. 5. The respondent No. 1 filed a miscellaneous appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Damoh which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12/13. The lower Appellate Court framed three issues and after hearing the parties set aside the order of Executing Court dated 23-01-2013 and remitted the matter back before the Executing Court to rehear the parties and after taking into account all the facts and circumstances, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 6. Criticizing this order, Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order of temporary injunction dated 18-05-1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 07-A/98, there was no occasion and question for respondent No. 1 to purchase the said property. In the application preferred under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC, the respondent No. 1 has not established that any fraud or material irregularity had taken place in the matter of sale of the property in question. The Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the order of Executing Court. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on certain judgments Babu Upendra Nath Basu v. Pandaya Gulab Sarkar, AIR 1940 Pat 264, Hirabai v. Hanumanth Krishnaji Bhide and others, (1996) 10 SCC 747 and Dhirendra Nath Gorai & another v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh and others, AIR 1964 SCC 1300. 7. Per Contra, Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposed the relief and supported the impugned order. In nutshell, he raised five fold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that no attachment of property as required under Order 21, Rule 54 of the CPC by Executing Court at Damoh on transfer of decree for execution under sub-section 4 of Section 39 of CPC had taken place. Secondly, it is urged that without summoning the record of trial Court and without attachment of property, the property was erroneously put to sale. Thirdly, it is contended that the sale was in utter violation of Order 21, Rule 64 of CPC. Fourthly, as mandated in the Order 21, Rule 84 of the CPC, 25% of the amount was not deposited on the date of auction. Thirdly, it is contended that the sale was in utter violation of Order 21, Rule 64 of CPC. Fourthly, as mandated in the Order 21, Rule 84 of the CPC, 25% of the amount was not deposited on the date of auction. Lastly, it is urged that rest of auction amount of 75% was not deposited within fifteen days as required under Order 21, Rule 85 of the CPC. In support of aforesaid contentions, he relied on following judgments Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others, AIR 2007 SC 1717 , Saheb Khan v. Mohd. Yousufuddin and others, AIR 2006 SC 1871 , Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar, AIR 2006 SC 1458 , Kadiyala Rama Rao v. Gutala Kahna Rao, (2000) 3 SCC 87 and Alok Badal v. State Bank of India, 2012 (2) MPLJ 534 . 8. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Before dealing with the rival contentions advanced at the bar, I deem it apposite to reproduce the Order 21, Rule 90 which reads as under:- "90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.- (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree holder, or the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. (3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up." (Emphasis supplied) 11. A simple reading of the said provision makes it clear that a party may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on twin grounds. If the proceeding of sale was polluted and pregnant with material irregularity or fraud, the sale can be set aside. A simple reading of the said provision makes it clear that a party may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on twin grounds. If the proceeding of sale was polluted and pregnant with material irregularity or fraud, the sale can be set aside. Another ground is relating to substantial injury to the applicant. In 2006 (4) SCC 476 (Saheb Khan v. Mohd. Yousufuddin and others), the Apex Court held that twin conditions precedent for setting aside sale, are (i) establishing a material irregularity or fraud, and (ii) establishing to the satisfaction of the court that the material irregularity or fraud had resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. Thus, the application of respondent No. 1 filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC needs to be tested on the anvil of the said twin conditions. In Saheb Khan (supra), the Apex Court held as under:- "In view of Rule 90 (2) of Order 21 CPC, for setting aside the sale merely establishing a material irregularity or fraud will not do. The applicant must go further and establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the material irregularity or fraud had resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. Conversely even if the applicant had suffered substantial injury by reason of the sale, that would not be sufficient to set aside the sale unless substantial injury had been occasioned by a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale." It was further held as under:- "A charge of fraud or material irregularity under Order 21, Rule 90 must be specifically made with sufficient particulars. Bald allegations would not do. The facts must be established which could reasonably sustain such a charge." (Emphasis supplied) 12. This judgment makes it clear that a sale cannot be set aside on mere asking. The applicant must raise the pleadings with accuracy and precision regarding material irregularity or fraud. In addition, he is required to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that such irregularity or fraud may result into substantial injury to the applicant. In absence of sufficient particulars and specific allegations, sale cannot be set aside. 13. If the respondent No. 1's application dated 03-12-2011 is examined, it will be clear that five points raised by Shri V.K. Jain before this Court did not find place in the said application. In absence of sufficient particulars and specific allegations, sale cannot be set aside. 13. If the respondent No. 1's application dated 03-12-2011 is examined, it will be clear that five points raised by Shri V.K. Jain before this Court did not find place in the said application. In other words, the material irregularity alleged by placing reliance on five points aforesaid were not pleaded and established before the Executing Court. Hence, the Executing Court had no occasion to examine the said aspect. As per judgment of Saheb Khan (supra), the application seeking setting aside of sale needs to establish the material irregularity or fraud by providing sufficient particulars. If details of irregularity or fraud are not pleaded and established, the Executing Court is not required to conduct any roving enquiry. In (1999) 9 SCC 276 (Ram Maurya v. Kailash Nath and others), the Apex Court held as under:- "The executing court in its order had held that the judgment-debtor/objector did not furnish adequate materials to substantiate the allegations of fraud and material irregularity. Even if we assume here for the sake of argument that there was material irregularity in conducting the sale of the property, we do not find any pleading by the objectors in their objections that on account of such material irregularity they were put to substantial injury. In the absence of such pleading, it was not open to the executing court to set aside the auction." (Emphasis supplied) 15. The impugned order dated 20-02-2015 is passed on various grounds which were not raised by the respondent No. 1 in his application dated 03-12-2011. At the cost of repetition, in my view, the courts below were required to examine the allegation of material irregularity or fraud to the extent it is pleaded and established by respondent No. 1. The lower Appellate Court was not justified in entertaining various grounds which were not pleaded by the respondent No. 1 in the said application. For example, the lower Appellate Court held that the purchase warrant is not the part of the original record. The Appellate Court further held that as per Order 21, Rule 84 of CPC, the property cannot be put to sale to satisfy the need of a meager decretal amount. The alleged violation of Order 21, Rule 64 of CPC were also not pleaded in the application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. The Appellate Court further held that as per Order 21, Rule 84 of CPC, the property cannot be put to sale to satisfy the need of a meager decretal amount. The alleged violation of Order 21, Rule 64 of CPC were also not pleaded in the application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. Thus, for the first time, the aforesaid grounds could not have been entertained by the lower Appellate Court. It is also noteworthy that in the order dated 23-01-2013, the Executing Court gave a finding that application of respondent No. 1/objector is not bona fide because he filed a written objection before In-charge Officer, Nazarat Department, Trial Court Damoh which shows that the objector was aware about the proceeding. A further finding is given that as per the said objection, the objector was aware about the proceeding in the year 2002 itself. The lower Appellate Court did not disturb this finding. 16. No doubt, Shri V.K. Jain has taken pains in raising aforesaid five points. However, as noticed, there is no pleading in this regard in the basic application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. The judgments cited in support of said points are of no assistance because of non-availability of sufficient pleadings and proof. 17. It is apt to mention here that the parties in this case have not filed the said application before this Court. During the course of arguments, a photocopy of said application is supplied to this Court by Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava. Shri V.K. Jain did not object to the same. Registry is directed to keep this application dated 03-12-2011 in the record carefully. 18. Since, the respondent No. 1 has failed to plead and establish the nature of irregularity or fraud committed in sale, no fault can be found in the order of the Executing Court. Since, in the civil suit a temporary injunction was granted by trial Court on 18-05-1999 and by that time the property was not purchased by the respondent No. 1, I am unable to hold that the respondent No. 1 should has been put to notice. 19. As per forgoing discussion, it is clear that the Appellate Court set aside the order of Executing Court dated 23-01-2013 on the basis of grounds which were never raised before the Executing Court. Hence, the said order cannot be permitted to stand. 20. 19. As per forgoing discussion, it is clear that the Appellate Court set aside the order of Executing Court dated 23-01-2013 on the basis of grounds which were never raised before the Executing Court. Hence, the said order cannot be permitted to stand. 20. Resultantly, the order dated 20-02-2015 is set aside. The petition is allowed. No cost. Registry of this Court shall comply with the direction given in Para 17 above.