Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by the decree-holders in execution proceedings.
(2.) PRABHU Dayal and Chhajuram applicants had a money decree against Hardeo, and put the same in execution on 18th May, 1952. The prayer was that the house and the Guara of the defendant situated in village Kanwarpura be attached and sold in execution of the decree, which was for Rs. 864/9/ -. The property was attached, and put up for sale. According to the report of the Amin dated 16th February, 1954, the house was knocked down for Rs. 511/-in the name of Nanda and the Guara for Rs. 275/- in the name of Chhota. The decree-holders filed on objection on the 25th of February, 1954, under O. XXI, r. 90, C. P. G. , praying for setting aside the sale on the ground that the notice of the time of sale was not given, and further the sale was knocked down in the name of Chhota, brother of Moolchand a co-decree-holder, in collusion with Moolchand. It was intimated that the decree-holder PRABHU Dayal himself was prepared to bid Rs. 1,000/- for that property. The Munsif of Kotputli, which was the executing court, found that the time of the sale was not given in the proclamation, which was an irregularity, but it was held that the decree-holder PRABHU Dayal had himself stated the value of the property to be Rs. 750/- at the time of setting the terms of sale, and that, therefore, no substantial injury had been proved to have been caused by the irregularity. He accord ingly dismissed the objection. The same judgment was upheld on appeal. There is no doubt that the time of the sale was not mentioned in the sale proclamation, and, therefore, there was an irregularity. The only point for consideration is whether it has resulted in substantial loss. The burden of proof of substantial loss having been caused is on the person who wants to set aside the sale. But as held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sri Raja Bommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Jamindar Garu vs. Sri Raja Bommadevara Venkatrayulu Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu (l), this burden may be discharged not only by direct evidence connecting the material irregularity or fraud with the substantial injury, but also by circumstantial evidence, that is, evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that the substantial injury was the result of the material irregularity or fraud. A persual of the report of the Amin shows that he went to the place at 11-30 and started the bidding. Only two persons, Nanda and shiv Karan, were bidders of the Guari (house), and this were as follows: - 1. Starting bid Rs. 500/ - 2. Nanda Rs. 505/ - 3. Shiv Karan Rs. 510/ - 4. Nanda Rs. 511/ - In the case of Guara, the bid started from Rs. 250/- and ended at Rs. 275/ -. Four persons Parbhati, Shivkaran, Nanda and Chhotu took part in the bid, each raising the bid by 5/- to Rs. 10/ -. Chhotu, in whose name the bid of the Guara was knocked down is said to be the brother of Moolchand, a co-decree-holder. Prabhu Dayal's application that he was prepared to bid for Rs, 1000/- was made on the 4th day of the sale, and another person Chokha on the same day expressed his willingness to bid Rs. 900/- for the same property. In his statement before the court the decree-holder Prabhu Dayal showed his willingness to bid Rs. 2000/ -. The court characterised this over-bidding as showing the instability of the mind of the decree-holder. This is not quite correct for in his statement in court the decree-holder seems to have only emphasised the fact that he was not only prepared to bid Rs. 1,000/- but was prepared to bid still higher in case it was necessary to do so Chokha also came in the witness box on behalf of the decree-holder, and expressed his willingness to bid upto Rs. 1,500/ -. He stated that the bidding was a whole and corner business, and nobody in the village knew anything about it. He was only out of the village for about an hour, and was in the village for the rest time, and did not see the sale taking place. Other witnesses were also produced to say that as a matter of fact no auction took place in the village on the particular day. The Amin, Sugan Chand, was examined as a witness for the purchaser, and he said that he reached the place at 11. 30 and conducted the auction till 4 P. M. He informed the decree-holder orally, but he did not turn up. He, however, admitted that he was not informed at what time the auction was to take place, and it was not mentioned in the proclamation. The bid for the Guara and the Guari took place simultaneously by turns. Nanda and Chhota have also been examined. They stated that 50 or 60 persons took part in the auction sale, and they had given bids many times. The facts proved thus are that the time at which the sale started was not mentioned. Certain persons, who wanted to buy, could not take part because of this omission, and soon after the sale was knocked down, offers of substantially higher bids had been received by the court. In my opinion, the circumstances are sufficient to show that a much higher value of the property sold could have been obtained if the time at which the sale was to take place had been properly notified. Ordinarily it is the judgment-debtor who suffers by the reduction in the value of the sale, but in this case the decree-holder Prabhu Dayal's case is that Moolchand is also entitled to receive rateable distribution, and unless the property is sold for a higher value, his decree would not be satisfied, and this is how Prabhu Dayal is interested in the sale being knocked at a proper value. I am of opinion that the omission to intimate the proper time of sale has resulted in substantial loss, and the sale must, therefore, be set aside. The revision is, therefore, allowed, and the sale of the Guara and the Guari of the judgment-debtor, which took place on 16th February, 1954, is set aside. Chhota and Nanda respondents will pay costs of the first appellate court and this Court in the proportion of 1 : 2 viz. , Chhota one-third and Nanda two-third, to the appellant. . ;