- (1.) This is a first appeal from order by a judgment-debtor. The appellant made objections against a sale of his property in execution of a civil Court decree. The sale was conducted at the Collector s office by the revenue Court amin. The first objection taken is that the nine items of property situated in three different villages and two different parganas were sold in one lot contrary to the terms of the sale proclamation. It is a fact that the sale proclamation set out that these nine items of property should be sold separately. The lower Court states that the sale officer s note of the date of sale, 29th March 1932, is that in the midst of the public auction gathering the property was on that date first put for sale in separate lots and subsequently all together. Learned Counsel for appellant argued that there was no such note on the record and he referred to the documents for each sale. We have however ascertained that there is such a note in such terms. Two witnesses were produced for the judgment-debtor who stated that they were prevented from purchasing particular shares, but they admit that they did not ask the sale officer to sell the shares separately. Further it is not shown that the villages are not adjacent, we consider that the appellant has failed to prove that there was any irregularity on this account.
(2.) The next argument taken is that in the order of adjournment no hour is prescribed at which the sale should take place. The sale was fixed in the sale proclamation for 21st March 1932. On that date the sale officer noted that no time was left as time had been taken up with the sale of other properties and therefore the sale of this property was adjourned to 29th March 1932. He did not fix an hour for the adjourned sale. Learned Counsel relies on the provision in Order 21, Rule 69(1) which states: The Court may, in its discretion, adjourn any sale hereunder to a specified day and hour, and the officer conducting any such sale may, in his discretion, adjourn the sale, recording his reasons for such adjournment.
(3.) Learned Counsel fails to note that, this sub-rule, only provides that where the Court adjourns a sale the Court should specify the day and hour, but the rule does not provide that the officer making an adjournment should also specify the hour. Presumably the reason is that for the officer this Court has already fixed the hour in General Rules (Civil), Vol. 2, Appendices p. 3, Appendix 1, "Sale of land other than ancestral in execution of civil Court decrees" Rule 2, which states: The sale shall commence at noon at all reasons in all Districts.;