Charles Dickson Field, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the SubordinateJudge of Mymensingh, refusing to set aside a sale on the grounds that there wasirregularity in publishing or conducting such sale; and that the applicants hadsustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity.

2. The Judge in the Court below has found that there was nosubstantial f injury proved in the case, nor was there any irregularity inpublishing or conducting the sale. He did not enter into the question, whether,assuming that injury and irregularity had been proved, such injury was byreason of such irregularity.

3. It had been contended before us by the learned Counselfor the appellants that there was irregularity. The judgment-debtors,appellants before us, are minors; and the irregularity alleged is this. Thesale was originally fixed for the 20th May 1884. On that date, an applicationwas made by certain of the judgment-debtors (other than the minors, who areappellants before us) for a postponement, which was granted to the 26th 0 May.On this latter date the judgment-debtors again applied for a postponement,which was granted to 2nd June 1884. It is said that these postponements made apostponement of more than seven days, being, as a matter of fact, apostponement of twelve days; and that the subsequent sale without a freshproclamation was a violation of the provisions of Section 291 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. I should be disposed to agree with this contention and to saythat there was an irregularity so far as regards the minors who we are notparties to the applications for postponement. Then, is there evidence ofsubstantial injury The Court below has found that substantial injury has notbeen proved. The evidence on this point has been read out and pressed upon usin order to induce us to come to a different conclusion; but I am not preparedto do so. But assuming that irregularity and injury have been proved, it isadmitted that there is not evidence to prove that the injury was in consequenceof, or by reason of, the irregularity. The case falls within the principle laiddown in the case of Macnaghen v. Mahabir Pershad Singh I.L.R. 9 Cal. 656 :I.L.R. 10 .A. 25. In that case their Lordships of the Privy Council said :"The High Court, having held that the non-statement of the amount ofrevenue in the proclamation was an irregularity, proceeded to try the questionwhether the irregularity had caused substantial injury to the applicant. Theysay : "But it may be reasonably supposed that the non-specification of theGovernment revenue in the sale proclamations published is one of the causeswhich caused the diminution in the price. There was no evidence at all on thesubject. It appears to their Lordships that the High Court could not, withoutevidence and upon a mere supposition, properly find that the non-statement ofthe revenue in the proclamation did cause an injury to the applicant by causingan inadequate price to be bid at the sale." The effect of this decision ofthe Privy Council has since been twice considered by this Court, first, in thecase of Tripura Sundari v. Durga Churn Pal I.L.R. 11 Cal. 74 [LQ/CalHC/1884/134] and again in theFull Bench case of Lala Mobaruk Lal v. The Secretary of State for India inCouncil I.L.R. 11 Cal. 200 [LQ/CalHC/1885/6] . In the latter case, it was the opinion of themajority of the Court that their Lordships of the Privy Council did not intendto lay down any positive rule applicable to all cases. By this we understand itto be meant that their Lordships of the Privy Council did not intend to laydown any positive rule as to what may or may not be evidence of cause andeffect in all cases, though they did lay down that in the absence of allevidence proved, injury cannot be presumed to be by reason of provedirregularity. There may be cases in which a reasonable presumption arising fromproved facts or created by law would be good evidence that the injury was the resultof the irregularity. Such cases would not be affected by the Privy Councildecision, the effect of which, as we understand the meaning of their Lordshipsof the Privy Council, is this: that there must be some evidence, and that inthe absence of evidence to show that the injury is the result of theirregularity, it is not to be presumed from the proved existence ofirregularity and injury that the latter has occurred by reason of the former.

4. In this case, assuming the irregularity and injury to havebeen proved there is no evidence that the latter is the result of the former.

5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

.

Satish Chunder Rai Chowdhuri and Ors. vs. Thomas and Ors.(22.05.1885 - CALHC)