As per case facts, an execution sale of an entire property was held to satisfy a decree. The judgment debtors later applied to set aside the sale, arguing a material ... irregularity: that the executing court failed to consider selling only a portion of the property, as required by law. The judgment debtors had participated or were served notice during the multiple prior proceedings to reduce the upset price, but failed to raise this specific objection at the time the sale proclamation was drawn up. The High Court set aside the sale, citing the executing court's failure to apply its mind to selling only a part of the property, leading the auction purchaser to appeal. The question arose whether the judgment debtors were barred by the statutory mandate of Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the CPC from challenging the execution sale on a ground of material irregularity that they could have raised at the time the sale proclamation was drawn up, but failed to. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that since the judgment debtors were put on notice at every stage and yet failed to raise the objection concerning the sale of the entire property, they were statutorily barred by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC from raising it belatedly after the sale was concluded, thus confirming the validity of the auction sale.