The appellant thereupon filed an appeal in the High Court where a single Judge upheld the objection holding that the failure to set out the hour amounted to a material irregularity, inconsequence whereof the appellant had been prejudiced by the sale having fetched too low a value.
10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court and, rule 5 of Ch.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 22, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
The writ petition was allowed and the assessment was quashed.
The sale, however, was postponed to July 30, 1956 at the instance of the appellant and on his offering to pay a part of the decreetal amount.
At the auction sale held on the adjourned date the respondent himself purchased the said one fourth share of the appellant for Rs.
Aggrieved by the said order the respondent filed.
8000/ .
As the State did number file any appeal against the said order, the order became .final.
417 of 1959.
The objection was overruled by the Execution Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The respondent had obtained a decree for Rs.
a Letters Patent appeal under cl.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal.
On the High Court refusing a certificate, the appellant obtained special leave from this Court and filed the present appeal.
Mohan Behari Lal, for the respondents.
The appellant companytended that the failure to mention the hour companytravened Order XXI, r. 69 and that such a companytravention was a material irregularity which vitiated the sale.
9000/ and odd against the appellant.
Avadh Behari, for the appellant.
On these findings the learned Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the auction sale.
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the said order on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the assessing officer.
In execution proceed ings taken out by him, the appellants one fourth share in a house was put up for sale and a proclamation setting out the date and hour when the sale would be held was duly issued.
The Additional Collector, Benaras assessed the respondent to an agricultural income tax under powers companyferred on him Under the U.P. Agricultural Income tax Act, 1949.
1569 of 1966.
The appellant filed an application for setting aside that sale under Order XXI, r. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that companytrary to the provisions of r. 69 of that Order, the numberice relating to the adjourned auction sale did number set out the hour when the auction would be held though the original proclamation under which the auction sale was to be held on the earlier date specified both the hour and the date.
