JUDGMENT : (Johnson John, J.) : The appellants are the judgment debtors in E.P. No. 191 of 2016 on the file of the Sub court, Thrissur and respondents 1 and 2 are the decree holders. The appeal is against the dismissal of E.A. No. 11 of 2023 filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale conducted on 11.01.2023 on the ground that the sale is vitiated by material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. 2. The appellants contended that during the pendency of the Execution Petition, the decree holders filed E.A. No. 8 of 2022 with a prayer to consolidate the decree amount in 7 Execution Petitions for realization of the decree debts due in E.P. Nos. 191 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1085/2004, 211 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1071 of 2004, 212 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1180 of 2004, 104 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1178 of 2004, 207 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1077/2004, 78 of 2016 in O.S. No. 1078/2004 and 208 of 2016 in O.S. 1137 of 2004. It is stated that the decree schedule properties having an extent of 12.75 Ares in re-survey No. 510/17/3 and 0.94 Ares in re-survey No.510/17/3 of Aymanam village along with residential house owned by the second appellant was sold in execution and the person representing all the decree holders bid the auction for a total price of Rs.1,56,96,350/-. It is stated that the court below allowed E.A. No. 8 of 2023 to consolidate the 7 Execution Petitions ignoring the objection of the appellants and the said order is in violation of Section 73 of CPC. It is stated that the decree holders in all the 7 Execution Petitions are separate legal entities and that the Execution Court has no power to consolidate the decree debts in different Execution Petitions and therefore, the auction sale of the scheduled property as a whole in all the Execution Petitions is material irregularity and fraud. 3. I.A. No. 2 of 2023 is an impleading petition, wherein petitioners 3 to 8 are the decree holders in the connected 6 Execution Petitions referred above and considering the nature of dispute involved, we find that the decree holders in the connected Execution Petitions are necessary parties for the proper disposal of the appeal and hence, the impleading petition is allowed . 4. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the court below allowed E.A. No. 8 of 2022 and consolidated the decree amount in 7 Execution Petitions and the whole decree schedule property is sold in execution in the absence of any prayer for rateable distribution and in violation of Section 73 of CPC. But, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that E.A. No. 8 of 2022 in E.P. No. 191 of 2016 for selling the decree schedule property for the purpose of realization of decree debt in all the 7 Execution Petitions was allowed by the court below on 10.08.2022 after considering the formal objection filed by the judgment debtors and since the said order was not challenged in appeal, the same has become final. It is pointed out that the decree amount, including interest and cost, in all the 7 Execution Petitions was Rs.2,15,24,381/-and the sale proclamation was drawn by fixing the upset price at Rs.1,56,96,350/- and the appellants have not filed any objection as against the sale proclamation. It is pointed out that the first respondent participated in the auction with the leave of the court as the representative of all the 7 decree holders and purchased the property for Rs.1,56,95,390/-. It is also pointed out that the decree debt in all 7 Execution Petitions were set off against the said purchase and that the decree holders also accepted the said sale towards full satisfaction of the decree debt in all the 7 Execution Petitions and therefore, there is no material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale. 6. Section 73 of CPC is extracted below for convenient reference: “3. 6. Section 73 of CPC is extracted below for convenient reference: “3. Proceeds of execution-sale to be rateably distributed among decree-holders.— (1) Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be rateably distributed among all such persons: Provided as follows:— (a) where any property is sold subject to a mortgage or charge, the mortgage or incumbrancer shall not be entitled to share in any surplus arising from such sale; (b) where any property liable to be sold in execution of a decree is subject to a mortgage or charge, the Court may, with the consent of the mortgagee or incumbrancer, order that the property be sold free from the mortgage or charge, giving to the mortgagee or incumbrancer the same interest in the proceeds of the sale as he had in the property sold; (c) where any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an incumbrance thereon, the proceeds of sale shall be applied— Firstly, in defraying the expenses of the sale; Secondly, in discharging the amount due under the decree; Thirdly, in discharging the interest and principal moneys due on subsequent incumbrances (if any); and Fourthly, rateably among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor, who have, prior to the sale of the property, applied to the Court which passed the decree ordering such sale for execution of such decrees, and have not obtained satisfaction thereof. (2) Where all or any of the assets liable to be rateably distributed under this section are paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets. (3) Nothing in this section affects any right of the Government.” 7. Order XXI Rule 72 of CPC reads thus: “72. Decree holder not to bid for or buy property without permission. (1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. (3) Nothing in this section affects any right of the Government.” 7. Order XXI Rule 72 of CPC reads thus: “72. Decree holder not to bid for or buy property without permission. (1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. (2) Where decree-holder purchases, amount of decree may be taken as payment- Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase-money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of Section 73, be set off against one another, and the Court executing the decree small enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly. (3) Where a decree-holder purchases, by himself or through another person, without such permission, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the judgment-debtor or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale, by order set aside the sale; and the costs of such application and order, and any deficiency of price which may happen on the re-sale and all expenses attending it, shall be paid by the decree-holder.” 8. In E.A. No. 8 of 2022, it is specifically stated that the decree holders in the connected Execution Petitions are sister concerns and that the judgment debtors and the property involved are the same and in view of the fact that only one saleable property is available for realizing the decree amounts in all the cases, it is necessary to conduct the auction sale after consolidating the decree amounts for the purpose of conducting the auction sale and against the said petition, the judgment debtors filed objection stating that the petition is not maintainable and denying the averment that the decree holders in the connected cases are sister concerns. 9. However, it is seen admitted in the objection that there are six other cases in which separate Execution Petitions are pending. 9. However, it is seen admitted in the objection that there are six other cases in which separate Execution Petitions are pending. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the decree holders in the connected cases filed similar applications in all the other six Execution Petitions and they have not sought for rateable distribution for the reason that the decree holders in all the 7 Execution Petitions are sister concerns and that the very same person is authorized to represent and participate in the auction on behalf of the decree holders and that even though the consolidated decree amount with interest and cost is much more than the market value of the property sought to be auctioned, being sister concerns and considering the fact that no other property of the judgment debtor is available for sale, they have decided to accept the sale price of the said property and to abandon the claim for the remaining decree amount and accordingly, the first respondent with the leave of the court, participated in the auction and purchased the property for Rs.1,56,95,390/- and thereby, the decree debt in all 7 Execution Petitions were set off against the said purchase. 10. It is pointed out that the decree holders in all the Execution Petitions accepted the said sale price towards full satisfaction of the decree debt in all the 7 cases amounting to Rs.2,15,24,391/- by abandoning the claim for the balance amount and therefore, it can be seen that the appellants/judgment debtors are only benefited and no substantial injury is caused to them. It is well settled that if the sale price is sufficient to cover all the debts, there would not be any question of dividing the sale price proportionately and only when the sale price is less, and the decree holders are not willing to accept the said amount, in full satisfaction of the respective decrees, the execution court is obliged to find out proportionate amount entitled by each of the decree holders and in such a situation, the decree holder/purchaser can set off only the amount he is proportionately entitled to under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 72 of Order XXI of CPC. 11. 11. Section 73 of CPC enables different decree holders, who obtained decrees against the same judgment debtor, to have a rateable distribtion of the assets belonging to the judgment debtor, subject to the condition that the decree holders should have obtained decrees against the common judgment debtor and initiated execution proceedings before receipt of the assets, and in this case, those conditions were satisfied. A conjoint reading of Section 73 along with Order XXI Rule 72 would show that it is always desirable to consolidate all the related Execution Petitions and are proceeded jointly and all the debts realizable by the sharing decree holders shall be stated in the sale proclamation and the appellants herein have no case that they filed any objection to the sale proclamation. Their only objection is that the decree holders have not sought rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. But, it is in evidence that the decree holders in all the 7 Execution Petitions are sister concerns and they authorised the very same person to represent and participate in the auction and even though the consolidated decree amount with interest and cost is much more than the market value of the property auctioned, they have decided to accept the sale price of the property in full satisfaction of the decree debts in all the Execution Petitions by abandoning the claim for the remaining decree amount and in that circumstances, it cannot be held that any prejudice is caused to the judgment debtors. 12. It is well settled that to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, the judgment debtor has to establish to the satisfaction of the court that there was material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale, and apart from that, he has to establish that the said material irregularity or fraud, as the case may be, has resulted in causing substantial injury to the judgment debtor, and in this case, the appellants/ judgment debtors have not succeeded in establishing any material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale of the decree schedule property and there is also no material to show that any substantial injury was caused to the judgment debtors and therefore, we find that the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this FAO is dismissed.