JUDGMENT : (Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.) Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode and Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, leaned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1976 (CPC) has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Nellore in EA.NO.44 of 2023 in E.P.No.738 of 2022 in OS.No.103 of 2016. 3. The appellants are the defendants/J.Drs and the respondent is the plaintiff/D.Hr/auction purchaser. 4. The respondent filed O.S.No.103 of 2016 interalia for recovery of the suit amount with interest and costs. The suit was decreed on 13.12.2018. The respondent filed E.P.No.738 of 2022. In the Execution proceedings, the auction scheduled property was sold in public auction on 16.03.2023, after publication in daily newspaper-Eenadu. In the publication, the date for auction was mentioned as 16.03.2022. The auction took place on 16.03.2023. The plaintiff/decree holder also participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and was a successful bidder. 5. The appellants filed application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC vide E.A.No.44 of 2023. They raised objections, viz; the property was grossly undervalued as Rs.40,00,000/- only, in the sale proclamation, though its value was more than a crore, there was no sufficient description of the property and that in the publication, the date of auction was wrongly mentioned as 16.03.2022 though the sale was conducted on 16.03.2023. Thus there was fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. 6. The respondent filed counter affidavit submitting inter-alia that the petition was without any merits and requested to dismiss the petition. 7. E.A.No.44 of 2023 has been dismissed by the Execution Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 under challenge in appeal. 8. The Execution Court held that the market value as per the Court Amin was Rs.42,00,000/-. The Execution Court fixed the upset price at Rs.45,00,000/-. Finally the property was sold at Rs.62,50,000/- in the public auction. The Execution Court further observed that the publication was made in Eenadu Daily Newspaper, a widely circulated newspaper. The property particulars were correctly made. 12 bidders participated in the auction. The bidders/prospective purchasers were not ignorant of property particulars or time and place of sale. Sufficient bidders participated. It was not a secret sale but public auction. The Execution Court further observed that the publication was made in Eenadu Daily Newspaper, a widely circulated newspaper. The property particulars were correctly made. 12 bidders participated in the auction. The bidders/prospective purchasers were not ignorant of property particulars or time and place of sale. Sufficient bidders participated. It was not a secret sale but public auction. It further observed that all the other objections that had been raised by the appellants herein, which could have been raised but were not raised at the proper time, those objections were not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC in view of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 90. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the newspaper publication the date of auction was incorrectly mentioned as 16.03.2022 and this is the material irregularity in conducting auction on 16.03.2023 which has caused substantial injury to the appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on the point of market value the appellant was not permitted to lead evidence. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the time and place of sale were clearly mentioned in the publication but the year was mistakenly typed as 2022 instead of 2023. Since, year 2022 had already passed and publication itself was made in the year 2023, the bidders understood the correct year 2023. Such printing mistake was not material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the auction. He submits that 12 bidders participated in the auction. The publication was in the daily newspaper having a wide circulation. It did not cause the substantial injury to the appellants. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance in the case of Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam v. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi, (2017) 6 SCC 770 . 13. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. Order 21 Rule 90 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. Explanation.—The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.” 15. Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC sale can be set aside on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. Sub-Rule (2) provides that 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. Sub-Rule (3) further provides that no application to set aside a sale under Rule 90 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. 16. In Kadiyala Kahna Rao vs. Gutala Kahna Rao (dead) by Lrs., and others, (2000) 3 SCC 87 , the Hon’ble Apex Court on the scope of Order 21 Rule 90, held as under in paras 7 and 8: “7. On a plain reading of the provisions thus three several factors emerge and which ought to be taken note of in the matter of setting aside the sale of an immovable property, viz., (i) material irregularity and fraud in publishing or conducting the sale; (ii) the Court dealing with such an application is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such an irregularity or fraud; and (iii) no application would be entertained upon a ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date of drawing up of the proclamation of sale. 8. The third requirement as above needs however special mention by reason of the factum of incorporation of the principles analogous to the doctrine of constructive res judicata as envisaged u/s 11 of the Code. 8. The third requirement as above needs however special mention by reason of the factum of incorporation of the principles analogous to the doctrine of constructive res judicata as envisaged u/s 11 of the Code. The legislative intent is clear and categorical in both the provisions as above that in the event of an intentional relinquishment of a known right question of proceeding further would not arise.” 17. In Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam’s case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that before the sale can be set aside 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 has resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. It was further held that conversely, even if the applicant has suffered substantial injury by reason of the sale, this would not be sufficient to set aside sale unless substantial injury has been occasioned by a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. So both the requirements are to be satisfied before a sale can be set aside under Rule 90. There must be material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale and as a result thereof substantial injury has been occasioned to the applicant. 18. Para-14 of Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam’s case (supra) as is under: 14. The law which governs the controversy involved in this appeal is laid down by this Court in Saheb Khan v. Mohd. Yousufuddin (a three-Judge Bench). While examining the scope of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code, Ruma Pal, J. speaking for the Bench held as under: (SCC pp. 480-81, paras 12-14) "12. We are unable to sustain the reasoning of the High Court. Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows, inter alia, any person whose interests are affected by the sale to apply to the court to set aside a sale of immovable property sold in execution of a decree on the ground of "a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting" the sale. Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 90 however places a further condition on the setting aside of a court sale in the following language: 90. Sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 90 however places a further condition on the setting aside of a court sale in the following language: 90. (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.' 13. Therefore before the sale can be set aside 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 has resulted in substantial injury to the applicant. Conversely even if the applicant has suffered substantial injury by reason of the sale, this would not be sufficient to set the sale aside unless substantial injury has been occasioned by a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. (See Dhirendra Nath Gorai v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar Y. Sushilaben Manital Dangarwalat and Radiyala Rama Rao V. Gutala Kahna Rao.) 14. 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. In the case before us, no such particulars have been given by the respondent of the alleged collusion between the other respondents and the auction-purchaser. There is also no material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. There was sufficient compliance with Order 21 Rule 67(1) read with Order 21 Rule 54(2). No doubt, the trial court has said that the sale should be given wide publicity but that does not necessarily mean by publication in the newspapers. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 67 clearly provide if the sale is to be advertised in the local newspaper, there must be specific direction of the court to that effect. In the absence of such direction, the proclamation of sale has to be made under Order 21 Rule 67(1) "as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by Rule 54 sub-rule (2)". Rule 54 sub-rule (2) provides for the method of publication of notice and reads as follows: 54. In the absence of such direction, the proclamation of sale has to be made under Order 21 Rule 67(1) "as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by Rule 54 sub-rule (2)". Rule 54 sub-rule (2) provides for the method of publication of notice and 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 courthouse, 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?” 19. There is no dispute that in the newspaper publication the date for auction was mentioned as 16.03.2022 instead of 16.03.2023. The sale proclamation was published in Eenadu Daily newspaper. Such publication was made in the year 2023. The auction was held on 16.03.2023. 12 bidders participated in the auction. 20. In our view if there was no proper publication or the public had no intimation of the correct date i.e., 16.03.2023, 12 bidders could not have participated. Mere mention of the year 2022 in place of 2023, in the facts of the case that the publication itself was made in the newspaper in the year 2023, there was no question of the public misunderstanding the date of auction as 16.03.2022 and as such, it is not a material irregularity in the conduct of auction. 21. In Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam’s case supra it was found that the proper publicity was given for auction-sale in papers pursuant to which as many as seven bidders had participated in the auction sale. It was observed that had there been no publicity, it would not have been possible for seven persons to participate in the auction proceedings. 22. We are also of the view that in the present case, the property having been sold at Rs.62,50,000/- against the upset price of Rs. 45,00,000/- and on this aspect the Execution Court also being satisfied, there is no substantial injury caused to the appellant. 22. We are also of the view that in the present case, the property having been sold at Rs.62,50,000/- against the upset price of Rs. 45,00,000/- and on this aspect the Execution Court also being satisfied, there is no substantial injury caused to the appellant. In any case, both the conditions for applicability of Rule 90 do not co-exist. 23. With respect to the other submission that the appellants were not granted opportunity to lead evidence on the point of market value, in view of sub Rule (3) of Rule 90 of Order 21 CPC, any other objection, beyond the scope of sub Rule (1) & (2) was not permissible at this stage of objection which is confined to material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. 24. In Kadiyala Kahna Rao vs. Gutala Kahna Rao (dead) by Lrs., and others, (2000) 3 SCC 87 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 categorically envisage that the material irregularity and fraud alone would confer jurisdiction on to the executing court to set aside the sale. In that case, the objection was raised as regards saleable interest, it was observed that the question of saleable interest does not come within the ambit of Order 21 Rule 90 and as such the judgment-debtor had no locus standi to apply to the court for setting aside the sale. 25. The relevant part in para No.10 reads as under: “10. …………………….. It is to be noticed at this juncture that question of saleable interest does not come within the ambit of Order 21 Rule 90 and as such the Judgment-Debtor had no locus standi to apply to the Court for setting aside the sale. In the present factual context, statute recognizes such a locus standi only in the event of material irregularity or fraud and not otherwise. Apart therefrom, saleable interest can only be challenged by the purchaser and not by the Judgment-Debtor since the purchaser's right would other-wise be clouded therewith by reason of there being no saleable interest in the property so far as the Judgment-Debtor is concerned. Order 21 Rule 91 is specific on this score and a right has been conferred on to the purchaser only”. 26. We do not find any illegality in the order under challenge. 27. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. Order 21 Rule 91 is specific on this score and a right has been conferred on to the purchaser only”. 26. We do not find any illegality in the order under challenge. 27. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.