11] If the totality of the aforesaid circumstances are taken into consideration, then it cannot be said that there has been any statutory breach insofar as fixation of upset price is concerned. At the highest, there may be some irregularities. The time lag between the fixation of upset price, which even according to respondent No.1 was to remain valid upto 21 January 2010 and the date of the actual auction, i.e., 15 July 2010, was not of such a magnitude, as would render the upset price, already fixed, as illusory or nonexistent. Ultimately, the suit property has been sold at the price of Rs.5,22,000/ when the upset price fixed hardly six months earlier, was Rs.5,16,800/. Subrule 14 of the Rule 107, contemplates ' material irregularity' as a ground for setting aside an auction. So also, no sale is to be set aside, unless the Recovery Officer records satisfaction that an applicant has sustained ' substantial injury '. Even the case of respondent No.1 was that the valuation of suit property is in the region of Rs.6 Lacs. The gap, both in terms of time and amount, is not such, as would either constitute ' material irregularity' or warrant inference of respondent No.1 having sustained ' substantial injury '. The Registrar,erred in treating the time limit of one year as expressed in the letter dated 23 January 2009 as being some statutorily prescribed time limit.
