- (1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's revision arising out of objections under O. 21, R. 90, Civil P. C. In execution of the decree the immovable property (house) belonging to the appellant was sold. Objections under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. were filed. They were dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order the judgment-debtor filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Against the appellate order the present revision has been filed.
(2.) THE appellate Court found esta blished almost all the objections raised by the judgment-debtor, but still dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not proved that the applicant had sustained substantial injury within the meaning of the Proviso to Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil P. C. The first objection was that the notice under Order 21, Rule 66 was not served on the judgment- debtor. The Court below did not accept that the evidence of the applicant that he had not received the notice was sufficient to rebut the presump tion of service arising from the alleged signa ture of the applicant on the postal acknow ledgment receipt. The second objection was that the trial court had refused to permit the applicant to give evidence about the valuation of the property to substantiate the objection that he had sustained substantial injury by reasons of the property being sold at a lower price. The appellate court found as a fact that the trial court had refused per mission, but justified the refusal on the ground that the objection had not been rais ed when the sale proclamation was drawn up under O. 21, Rule 66. The applicant, therefore, got no opportunity to establish the requirements necessary to get out of the clutches of the proviso to O. 21, R. 90, Civil P. C.
(3.) AS regards the next objection the finding of the appellate court is that the terms of the sale proclamation were not written by the learned Munsiff himself. O. 21 Rule 110, C. P. C. Provides: "The result of the enquiry under R. 66 shall be noted in an order made for the purposes by the presiding judge in his own handwriting. This provision has been made to guarantee that the trial Court applies its mind to the terms of the sale proclamation and to show that it had been correctly drawn up. This omission acquires greater significance in the present case as the applicant was denied the opportunity to lead evidence regarding the correctness of the entries in the sale pro clamation. ;