JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The Rule that mere inadequacy of price in execution of sale of property cannot give a court of appeal, or for that matter a court of equity, jurisdiction to set aside such sale, unless irregularity is found manifest is stated often in the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court; and it is equally said, in substance, that any irregularity latent or patent, even the least spark of it, may be enough to obtain jurisdiction to the court to set aside the sale. 2. The substratum of the pleaded allegations in this appeal, which challenges the sale of property in execution proceedings, is that the sale proclamation is irregular and that the auction price is woefully inadequate. The allegations of irregularity in the proclamation of sale singularly pirouettes on the assertion of the appellant that it was not published in news papers, thus allegedly leading to a lower price being attracted in sale for want of enough publicity. The appellant predicates in this appeal that all sale proclamations in execution proceedings are statutorily required to be published in newspaper and such other media. 3. Our assiduous consideration of these issues, in the facts of this case, leads to a conclusion against the appellant and we proceed to record our opinion and findings ut infra. 4. This appeal assails the order of the Sub Court, Ottappalam, refusing to set aside an auction sale in execution, in E.P.No.76 of 2011 in O.S.No.205 of 2007, which was a suit instituted by the respondent herein against the appellant claiming certain sum of money. The suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.2,74,050/- on 26.03.2011 and the respondent levied execution by filing E.P.No.76 of 2011 on 27.05.2011. 5. Several proceedings were continued thereafter for execution of the decree but because there were no bidders to buy the attachment schedule properties, when they were brought to sale, the court below eventually, by order dated 10.08.2015, ordered the property to be sold for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- per cent. Item No.2 of the attachment schedule property was thus purchased by the respondent/decree holder himself for an amount of 5,61,000/-. On 19.08.2015, the decree holder deposited Rs.2,41,487/- along with Rs.33,660/-, being the stamp duty payable on the sale deed to be executed, before the court below after setting off the amount due to him under the decree. 6. Item No.2 of the attachment schedule property was thus purchased by the respondent/decree holder himself for an amount of 5,61,000/-. On 19.08.2015, the decree holder deposited Rs.2,41,487/- along with Rs.33,660/-, being the stamp duty payable on the sale deed to be executed, before the court below after setting off the amount due to him under the decree. 6. This led to the appellant to file E.A.No.270 of 2015, on 05.10.2015, under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the sale effected by the court be set aside on various grounds, but primarily on the ground that the property was sold for an exiguous sum and that an extent of 7 cents was not required to be sold to recover the decree debt. This application was, however, dismissed by order dated 08.01.2016, which was led to this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri. P. Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. P.V. Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant calls the impugned order into question by pointing out certain irregularities in the sale which, according to him, are fatal to its validity in law. He says that the description of the property has not been properly shown in the proclamation; that there are toilets and such other constructions in the property which have not been shown in the proclamation; that the present access to the property is 12 metres, which was earlier 6 metres and that this increase has not been shown in the proclamation; that the property is situated in a commercially important area, near a Medical College, Market and such other commercial and industrial establishments and therefore, that the value shown in the proclamation is inadequate. He also has a specific contention that the sale was not properly proclaimed by the court below. 9. As we have indicated above, the decree in O.S.No.205 of 2007 was issued by the court below as early as on 21.01.2010. This decree was an ex parte decree and nothing is placed on record to show that the appellant had at any point of time, applied to have the decree set aside. After the decree was so passed, E.P.No.76 of 2011 was initially filed by the respondent herein to have the petition schedule properties, which are three in numbers, to be sold. After the decree was so passed, E.P.No.76 of 2011 was initially filed by the respondent herein to have the petition schedule properties, which are three in numbers, to be sold. He had also filed E.A.No.331 of 2011 to permit him to bid the property, presumably under Order 21 Rule 72A of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, on 24.11.2011, the property was sold and purchased by Sri. Vijayakumar, against which the respondent herein filed an application to have that sale set aside. This sale was set aside by order dated 28.02.2013, thus requiring a fresh sale to be conducted. At this time, the respondent herein filed E.A.No.24 of 2014 praying that the upset price of the property be reduced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground that the earlier sale attempts were unsuccessful because the price was excessive. This application appears to have been allowed by the court below and the records reveal that it posted the execution petition for proclamation and sale of the property to a particular date. However, the respondent herein approached this Court by filing O.P.(C) No.896 of 2014 challenging the proclamation of sale which was disposed of by this Court directing that all the three properties shall be sold lot-wise and that each of them shall be sold only in sequence one after the other, so that only that extent of the property, which is essential for recovery of the decree debt may be sold. Against this judgment of this Court, R.P.No.468 of 2014 was filed by the respondent which was disposed of modifying the judgment, but only to the extent to which the court below was directed to identify the proper lie and boundaries of the schedules of the properties before sale was ordered by it. It was also reiterated therein that the properties be sold only in separate lots and that it be sold as one lot only if the first attempt does not fructify. 10. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in R.P.No.468 of 2014, a Commissioner was deputed by the court below, who filed a report dated 16.09.2014, wherein the three items of properties were properly identified. The first item comprises of 8¼ cents, the second item of 7 cents and the third item of three cents. 10. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in R.P.No.468 of 2014, a Commissioner was deputed by the court below, who filed a report dated 16.09.2014, wherein the three items of properties were properly identified. The first item comprises of 8¼ cents, the second item of 7 cents and the third item of three cents. The sketch prepared by the Commissioner, produced along with his report, would show that all these three extents of land are properly bounded and that it has access independently. Subsequent to this, the proceedings sheet reveal that the properties were proclaimed for sale on 27.10.2014, which also did not attract any bidders. Consequently, the respondent herein filed E.A.No.286 of 2014 seeking that the reserve price of the properties be reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.60,000/- on the ground that even though the property had been brought to sale at least two times before, there had been no bidders to bid for it at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. The court below, however, did not allow the E.A at that time but ordered a fresh sale by publication of the proclamation in a newspaper, as per order dated 03.02.2015. In terms of this order, the proclamation of sale was published in the Mathrubhumi daily, Palakkad Edition showing the date of sale as 21.02.2015. The upset price continued as Rs.1,00,000/-. 11. The case records would show that the sale, scheduled on 21.02.2015, again did not draw any bids and therefore, that by an order passed on 23.02.2015, the court below allowed E.A.No.286 of 2014, reducing the upset price to Rs.80,000/- but not to Rs.60,000/- as has been prayed therein. The court below ordered the sale of the property by a fresh proclamation and the sale was scheduled to be done on 24.03.2015. Even though proclamation was done as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, this sale again did not happen because of dearth of bidders. The respondent, therefore, filed E.A.No.137 of 2015, once again praying that the upset price be reduced from Rs. 80,000/- to 60,000/- per cent. This E.A. was, however, dismissed by the court below by order dated 30.06.2015. The court below after that ordered the property to be sold by due publication on 10.08.2015 fixing the upset price at Rs.80,000/- per cent. The respondent, therefore, filed E.A.No.137 of 2015, once again praying that the upset price be reduced from Rs. 80,000/- to 60,000/- per cent. This E.A. was, however, dismissed by the court below by order dated 30.06.2015. The court below after that ordered the property to be sold by due publication on 10.08.2015 fixing the upset price at Rs.80,000/- per cent. In spite of all this, since there were no bidders to bid the property, the decree holder was permitted to bid the second item of property, comprised of 7 cents of land, for a total price of Rs.5,61,000/-, calculated at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per cent. After adjusting the decree debt, which was Rs.3,19,513/- as on 10.08.2015, the respondent herein deposited Rs.2,41,487/- along with Rs.33,660/- being the stamp duty on the sale, as we have already said above. It is this sale that was challenged by the appellant before the court below, leading to this appeal. 12. From a survey of the facts as above, it would become more or less certain that the court below had not acted in haste at all during any stage of the proceedings. It had given sufficient opportunities to both parties to ensure that the properties were brought to sale for sufficient and justifiable price. Several attempts were made to have the properties sold for Rs.1,00,000/- per cent. This did not yield any result. The court below, therefore, circumspectly had reduced the upset price by its order dated 23.02.2015 on E.A.No.286 of 2014 to Rs.80,000/- per cent. Pertinently, this order was never challenged and has not been challenged by the appellant before any Forum including this Court until now. We would, therefore, only assume that the price fixed by the court below, namely, Rs.80,000/- per cent for the petition schedule properties, was justified in the prevailing market circumstances and we do not, therefore, see any merit in the submissions of Sri. P. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the price quoted by the court below for the sale was insufficient and woefully inadequate. 13. The only question, therefore, which remains in this case is whether the property had been sold after a proper proclamation. The law relating to the proclamation of sale with respect to property is governed by Order 21 Rule 67 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. 13. The only question, therefore, which remains in this case is whether the property had been sold after a proper proclamation. The law relating to the proclamation of sale with respect to property is governed by Order 21 Rule 67 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. As per this provision, every proclamation shall be published as nearly may be in the manner prescribed by Rule 54 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: “54(2) The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court-house, and also, where the property is land paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land is situate [and, where the property is land situate in a village, also in the office of the Gram Panchayat, if any, having jurisdiction over that village.]” 14. We have examined the records to see whether the court below has complied with the statutory requirements mandated under Rule 54(2) of the CPC. The records would indicate without any cause for doubt that the order of proclamation was affixed on the property to be sold; that it was affixed on a conspicuous part of the court house; that the proclamation was delivered to the Village Office where it was also published; that a copy of it was given to the Grama Panchayat for publication and finally, that the office of the District Collector of the District was also furnished with a copy for publication in their official board. This is all that the court below ought to have done and could have done under the provisions of Rule 54(2) above. Of course, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the court below ought to have notified the proclamation for publication in a newspaper so that maximum number of bidders could have been attracted. This may be a rule of prudence but this is not a rule of statutory requirement. Rule 54(2), as we have already indicated above, does not say that a publication has to be done in a newspaper. This may be a rule of prudence but this is not a rule of statutory requirement. Rule 54(2), as we have already indicated above, does not say that a publication has to be done in a newspaper. Under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 67, the only mode for proclamation is provided under Rule 54(2). This has been done by the court below and merely because publication of the sale proclamation in a newspaper may have been prudent, it would not be a reason for us to forensically hold or conclude that the sale conducted pursuant to is in any manner vitiated. 15. We say this also for the reason that we do not see any substantial prejudice having been pleaded or demonstrated by the appellant on account of the sale. The only contention relating to prejudice regarding the sale, as submitted by Sri. Chandrasekhar, is that 7 cents of property was sold for Rs. 5,61,000/- even though the decree debt was only Rs.3,19,513/-, which, according to him, would be sufficient to infer that excess property has been sold. This submission may look attractive at one glance but the fact remains that only three schedules of properties were available for sale. These three properties are bounded clearly by specific boundaries and it is impossible, even going by the sketch prepared by the Commissioner deputed by the court below, that it could be sold in fragmented lots. We have already noticed above that this Court, while disposing of R.P. No. 468 of 2014 which was at the behest of the appellant herein, had only directed that the three properties be sold in separate lots one after the other. This Court did not say that each of the properties be fragmented further so as to sell only such fragmented part as would be sufficient to obtain the decree debt. These orders are now final and these have been obtained by the appellant in proceedings that he initiated and which he pursued. 16. By way of abundant caution, we have also examined the proclamation of the sale in this case closely. We do not find any irregularity, as has been contended by Sri. These orders are now final and these have been obtained by the appellant in proceedings that he initiated and which he pursued. 16. By way of abundant caution, we have also examined the proclamation of the sale in this case closely. We do not find any irregularity, as has been contended by Sri. Chandrasekhar, but on the contrary, we notice that the proclamation has been made explicitly in terms of the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure and strictly adhering to the mandatory and statutory imperatives with respect to sale of property under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We, therefore, find no reason to find favour with any of such submissions. Our view as above is strengthened because pending this lis, on 13.06.2016, a sale certificate has been concededly issued by the court below in favour of the respondent and as already seen above, he has deposited the price of the stamp paper along with the balance sale price when he made the deposit on 19.08.2015. 17. In such circumstances and in the summation of the reasons we have recorded above, we see no cause to interfere, in any manner, with the order of the court below, assailed in this appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we, however, make no order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.