These are applications to set aside sale of 51/100th share of property at No. 1, Purana Quila Road, New Delhi auctioned on 26th September, 1977 for Rs. 4,55,000 in favour of Delhi/Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Delhi. On 24th April 1973 a money decree for Rs. one lac with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of payment of this amount i.e 25th June, 1962 till the date of decree and future interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of decree till realisation and costs of suit Rs. 4,101.95 P. was passed in suit No. 99 of 1966. Defendant No. 1 was to pay Rupees 40,000 with interest, defendants 4A and 4B and defendants 1 to 3, 6 to 12 as legal representatives of defendant Smt. Kirpa Devi were to pay a sum of Rupees 20,000 with interest from the property of the deceased, and defendants 8 and 9 as well defendants 6 to 9 as legal representatives of defendant No. 5 deceased were to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 with interest, to the plaintiff. On 2nd August, 1973 execution No. 63 of 1973 was filed for the recovery of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the said property at 1, Purana Quila Road, New Delhi, by attachment under Order 21, Rule 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an amount of Rs. 32.000 due to Rani Kirpa Devi lying in deposit with the Managing Committee of Guru Harkishan Public School New Delhi and also by attachment of Rs. 3,000 per month out of rent falling due to the judgement-debtors on the first of every month from the managing committee of Guru Harkishan Public School. By order dated 23rd August, 1973 the Managing Committee of said School was prohibited from making payment of the amount due to late Rani Kirpa Devi or to any of her legal representatives. The Managing Committee of the said School accordingly deposited Rs. 35,434.81 and the same was ordered to be paid to the decree-holder as per Order dated 5th February, 1974. This amount is stated to have been paid to the decree-holder. Judgement-debtors by order dated 5th February, 1974 were restrained from recovering rent from the School and the Managing Committee of the said School was directed to deposit Rs. 2,700 out of rent becoming due to judgement-debtors every month in this court.

2. The share of the judgement-debtors in the property was stated to be 51/100. Accordingly by order dated 25th September, 1975, 51/100th share in the said property was ordered to be attached. The order prohibiting the judgement-debtors from transferring or charging the property in any way and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge was not served for a sufficiently long time and therefore by order dated 4th January, 1977 the said prohibitory order was directed to be served by publication which was published in the daily issue of ‘Indian Express’ dated 29th April, 1977. The judgement-debtors by this notice were also directed to appear in court on 9th May, 1977 at 10-30 A.M Bawa S.C Singh, Advocate was appearing in these proceedings as counsel for the judgement-debtors. S. Mohd. Anis, Advocate appeared for counsel for the judgement-debtors on 9th May, 1977 and judgement-debtors were granted time to file objections till 19th July, 1977 on which date the counsel for judgement-debtors again prayed for a week's time to file objections, which was granted but objections were not filed. On 19th July, 1977 counsel for the decree-holder in the presence of counsel for the judgement-debtors also filed an application (EA 213/77) under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was ordered to be placed on 29th July for appropriate orders. On 29th July, 1977 the execution case was directed to be placed before the Court on 4th August, 1977 for sale order. On 4th August, 1977 in the presence of counsel for the decree-holder and Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for counsel for the judgement-debtors, the Court directed issue of warrant of sale as well as proclamation of sale. The sale was fixed for 26th September, 1977. The decree-holder filed an application (EA 253/77) and on 1-9-1977 in the presence of counsel for the decree-holder and judgement-debtors it was ordered that the proclamation of sale be affixed at the Court house and at the spat by 7th September, 1977. The proclamation of sale was accordingly issued which was affixed at the court house and at the spot and the property was put to sell on 26th September, 1977. The property was purchased by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Managing Committee Delhi for Rs. 4,55,000. The sale held on 26th September, 1977 was made absolute in the name of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of the purchaser by order dated 2nd November, 1977. It was observed that objections to the auction were not filed by any of the parties within the prescribed period, and consequently the sale was made absolute and sale certificate was ordered to be issued. On 16th November, 1977 judgement-debtors Nos. 1, 2, 5(a) to 5(d) and 6 to 9; filed application (EA 365/77) praying that proceedings from the date of filing of application under Order 21 R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure be ignored and the alleged sale dated 26th September, 1977 be held to be nullity, on the ground that no notice of application under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever ordered to be issued to any of the judgement-debtors, that terms of proclamation were not settled, that no opportunity was given to the judgement-debtors to file objections against sale, that on 4th August, 1977 when the property was directed to be sold, Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate who appeared for counsel for judgement-debtors, was never appointed as an Advocate by any of the judgement-debtors, that there was no beat of drums at site and that hand-bills or posters for the sale were not issued, that there was no pasting of any notice on the property or the court house, that sale is in fraud of Court and judgement-debtors, that property has been sold for Rs. 4,55,000 while it was worth more than twenty lacs. The decree-holder in his reply pleads that the objections having been filed more than 30 days after the sale are barred by time, that application under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made on 19th July, 1977 in the presence of counsel for judgement-debtors and thus they had valid notice of the application, and all orders on this application were passed in the presence of counsel for judgement-debtors without any objection, that the various dates for affixation of proclamation of sale at the spot and the court house as well as the date of auction were fixed in the presence of counsel for judgement-debtors, that sale took place on 26th September, 1977 and on 29th September, 1977 time was allowed to judgement-debtors to file objections but objections were not flied and therefore sale was confirmed on 2nd November, 1977, that hand-bills were issued and there was advertisement by beat of drum, that Rs. 4,55,000 price of 51/100th share of property was reasonable and proper as the judgement-debtors were not in possession of the property, and that the sale was not liable to be set aside. Judgement-debtors also filed an application dated 16th January, 1978 (EA 30/78) praying that the issue of sale certificate be stayed till the decision of the previous application (EA 365/77). The prayer for stay of proceedings was declined by order dated 17th January, 1978. The following preliminary issues were framed on 12th September, 1978 and the matter was adjourned for arguments :

“1. Whether the two objection-petitions E.A Nos. 385/77, and 30/78 are within time ?

2. Whether the two objection-petitions are maintainable under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure after confirmation of the sale and issue of the sale certificate ?

3. Whether the auction-purchaser is a necessary party to these objections ?”

3. On 9th October, 1978 arguments were heard in part on the preliminary issues and it was discovered that Article 127 of the Limitation Act 1963 prescribing 30 days period from the date of sale to set aside sale in execution of decree was amended by Code of Civil procedure (Amendment) Act 104 of 1976 and for ‘thirty days’ a period of sixty days was prescribed to set aside such a sale prima facie, it appeared that petition dated 16th November, 1977 (EA 365/77) was within time and it was not considered necessary to decide the preliminary issues and the following additional issues were framed on 9th October, 1978 :

“1. Whether the sale is void as alleged in EA 365/77 ?

2. Whether the sale is liable to be set aside for any of the reasons mentioned in EAs 365/77 and 30/78 ?

3. Relief.”

4. Time was granted to the parties to lead evidence in support of these issues but no evidence was produced and counsel for judgement-debtors made a statement that judgement-debtors did not want to produce evidence in support of their objections. In their application (EA 296/78) an objection was raised by the judgement-debtors that the tenant in the property by order dated 5th February, 1974 was directed to deposit the rent in Court and that no amount is due to the decree-holder and as such the sale was liable to be set aside. It was further prayed that the tenant be directed to file statement of account indicating the amount of rent paid in Court from the date of order dated 5th February, 1974. It was further alleged that the auction-purchaser and the tenant in the property are one and the same person. All these three objection-applications have been heard together.

5. The question for decision is whether the sale held on 26th September, 1977 is void as no notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was ordered to be issued. The answer depends upon the true interpretation of Order 21, Rule 66 which is as under :—

“66. (1) Where any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court.

(2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgement-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible —

(a) the property to be sold (or, where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part);

(b) the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the estate, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government;

(c) any inumbrance to which the property is liable;

(d) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered; and

(e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property :

(Provided ....................... parties.)

(3) Every application for an order for sale under this rule shall be accompanied by a statement signed and verified in the manner hereinbefore prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings and containing, so far as they are known to or can be ascertained by the person making the verification, the matters required by sub-rule (2) to be specified in the proclamation.

(4) For the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation, the Court may summon any person whom it thinks necessary to summon and may examine him in respect to any such matters and require him to produce any document in his possession or power relating thereto.”

6. If the issue of notice to the decree-holder and the judgement-debtors before drawing up the proclamation of sale as required by sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory the sale would be void but if it is directory the sale would be voidable. In the present case, the judgement-debtors were at all relevant times aware of the execution proceedings and they never filed any objections challenging the facts specified in the proclamation of sale issued vide order dated 4th August, 1977. The judgement-debtors on 9th May, 1977 were directed to file objections till 19th July, 1977 they did not file but sought further time to file the same but even then no objections were filed. Application under O.21 R.66 (EA 213/77) was filed in the presence of thee counsel for the judgement-debtors on 19th July, 1977 which was adjourned to 29th July, 1977, The counsel for the judgement-debtors was however not present on 29th July, 1977 but when it came up for hearing on 4th August, 1977, counsel for judgement-debtors was present and he did not seek any time to object to the contents mentioned in the application under O.21 R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order fixing the date of sale as 26th September, 1977 was passed in the presence of the counsel for the judgement debtors but even then the counsel for the judgement debtors did not object to it, Again on 1st September, 1977 counsel for the judgement debtors was present when it was ordered that proclamation be affixed at the Court house and at the spot by 7th September, 1977. The conduct of the judgement-debtors from the date when they appeared after the service of the prohibitory order on 9th May, 1977 till the date of auction leads to me to the conclusion that the judgement-debtors were never serious to challenge the facts mentioned in the application under O.21, R.66 and they were only waiting for the property to be suctioned and to take objections only thereafter. If really there were any objections against the particulars to be specified in the proclamation of sale as required by O.21 R.66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure they could have come forward and made a petition to this Court requiring the matters which the judgement debtors wanted to be included in the proclamation of sale. The judgement debtors in their objections have not alleged any irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale There is also no allegation of any substantial injury by reason of any irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting sale The word ‘fraud’ has been used in the objections, but no particulars of the fraud are mentioned therein. Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as under :—

“In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.”

7. Under this rule party relying on misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, undue influence etc. is required to give particulars of such pleas with dates etc. It is now well established that if particulars are not given such pleas are to be ignored. In Bishnudeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai, (AIR 1951 SC 280), it has been observed as follows :—

“Though pleas of undue influence and coercion may overlap in part in some cases they are separable categories in law and must be separately pleaded.

In cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Ct. ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion.

In the case of coercion when a Ct. is asked to find that a person was threatened with death it is necessary to give particulars to the nature of the threat, the circumstances, the date, time and place in which it was administered and the name of the person threatening. In the absence of such particulars it would be impossible to reach a proper conclusion,”

8. No particulars of the alleged fraud are pleaded by the judgement debtors. It is, therefore, not possible to determine the plea of fraud in the absence of particulars. As regards irregularity in publishing or conducting sale the case of the judgement debtors is that notice under O.21 R.66(2) was never ordered to be issued. Issue of notice under this rule is a part of publication of the proclamation of sale and as such the sale is to be objected to under R.90 of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is as under :—

“90. (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 an 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.”

9. In Sundrabai Ramchandra Rabade v. Anandrao Haribhau Rabade, AIR 1973 Bom 301, it has been held that the provision as to notice of auction contained in sub-r. (2) of R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory and so non-service of the notice upon the judgement-debtors will only render the subsequent sale voidable at his instance and the application filed by the judgement debtors for setting aside sale will fall under O.21 R.90 and not under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus it appears that the present objections do not fall under S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure but fall only under O.21 R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he sale is also not a nullity. The judgement debtors at all relevant time were aware of the execution proceedings. There is no allegation of any substantial injury to them by non-issue of notice under R.66(2) of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants judgement-debtors are to show substantial injury under O.21 R.90 of the Code of Civil Procedure as held in AIR 1945 PC 178. There is no irregularity in publishing the proclamation of sale. The non-issue of the notice under R.66(2) of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure; therefore, does not entitle the judgement-debtors to get the sale set aside.

10. As regards other points that Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate was not authorised, that there was no beating of drum and distribution of handbills and posters, and that property was worth Rs. 20 lacs and sold only for Rs. 4.55 lacs, no evidence has been produced by the judgement debtors on any of these points and hence these are not grounds for setting aside the auction sale.

11. Another objection of the judgement debtors is that by order dated 5th Feb 1974 the tenant, Managing Committee of the School was required to deposit the rent and that by said deposit the decree stands satisfied or that the tenants ought to have deposited the same. There is no evidence in support of such pleas. The auction purchaser is a different body than the School. There is no direction to the auction purchaser in the order dated 5th February, 1974. The last contention of the learned counsel for the judgement debtors was that the auction purchaser is the tenant in the suit property. The auction purchaser is Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Managing Committee, Delhi, while the tenant in the property is Guru Harkishan Public School and the injunction order dated 5th February, 1974 is addressed to the Managing Committee of the said school.

12. I, therefore, hold that the objection petition (EA 365/77) having been filed within sixty days from the date of sale is within time and that the objection petitions Nos. 30/78 and 296/78 having been filed on 17th January, 1978 and 3rd October, 1978 are barred by time further hold that the sale held on 26th September, 1978 is not void but is voidable but no steps were taken to plead and produce evidence on behalf of judgement debtors to show that there was any irregularity or fraud in publishing, or conducting sale. No substantial injury has been proved or pleaded and as such the sale is not liable to be set aside.

13. Learned counsel for the judgement debtors has referred to authorities which are on the points not pleaded in the objection petition. It is, therefore, not necessary to consider these authorities.

14. No ground is therefore available to the judgement debtors to set aside the sale. As already mentioned the sale was confirmed on 2nd November, 1977, the Sale Certificate has also been issued since then. These objections (365/77, 30/78 and 296/78) are therefore dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/- to be paid to the auction purchaser and another fee Rs. 500/- to be paid to the decree-holder by the judgement debtors.

Order accordingly.