A.D.Koshal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeks the revision of the order dated the 28th of November, 1975, passed by Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ambala Cantt., dismissing the objections filed by the judgment -debtor -Petitioner in response to a notice issued to him under Sub -rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the main grouse of the Petitioner being that the application made by the decree -holder -Respondent under Sub -rule (3) of the said rule was not accompanied by any statement, verified or unverified, as is envisaged by that rule 2 SUB -rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure are reproduced below for facility of reference: R. 66 (1) Where any property is ordered to sale of public auction in execution of a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court. (2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and the judgment debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible - (a) The property to be sold; (b) the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the estate, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government ; (c) Any incumbrance to which the property is liable ; (d) The amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered, and (e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to knew in order to judge of the nature and value of the property. (3) Every application for an order for sale under this rule shall be accompanied by a statement signed and verified in the manner herein before prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings and containing, so far as they are known to or can be ascertained by the person making the verification, the matter, required by Sub -rule (2) to be specified in the proclamation. Although the petition was supported by two affidavits sworn by the Petitioner, one stating that the application made by the decree -holder under Rule 66 was not verified at all, and another asserting that that application was not accompanied by any statement, at the hearing it has transpired that paragraphs 2 to 5 of the said application itself contained the particulars covered by Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 66. The averments made in those paragraphs were: 2. That, the number of properties to be sold are 35 B and 72B, Govind Nagar, Ambala Cantt. That, the value of above properties is Rs. 30,000/ -. THAT , the above properties are not mortgaged but have been attached in other decree of the same decree -holder valuing Rs. 28,000/ -. THAT the decrial amount is Rs. 5360/ - plus Rs. 747.60 plus interest up -to -date and expenses of the execution. If the application under Rule 66 filed by the decree holder had been verified in the manner prescribed for the signing and verification of pleadings it would have substantiality complied with the requirements of Sub -rule (3) even though it was not accompanied by a separate statement signed and verified as aforesaid. As laid down by Shadi Lal, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Mani Ram v. Lachman Dass, A I.R. 1917 Lah. 136, the object or the application under sub rule (3) as to supply the court with the necessary information for the purpose of issuing the proclamation of sale. If the object is fulfilled by the decree holder supplying the particulars detailed in Clauses (a) to (e) of sub rule (2), the mandate of Sub -rule (3) should be deemed to have been complied with. In Marti Ram's case (supra) those particulars had been supplied by the decree -holder before the stage of the issuance of the proclamation of sale was reached and it was held that in those circumstances a second application was not absolutely essential. The real thing to be seen, according to Shadi Lal, J., is whether the omission to file an application meticulously fulfilling the requirements of Sub -rule (3) had caused any injury to the judgment -debtor, and where no such injury has resulted from the omission, such omission should not be deemed to be a fatal defect such as would vitiate the subsequent proceedings. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mani Ram's case and hold that the application made by the decree -holder having substantially complied with the provisions of sub rule (3), the proclamation of sale and the subsequent proceedings are not liable to be set aside on the ground that the application was not accompanied by a separate statement, containing the particulars mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Sub -rule (2) or that the necessary verification did not appear either in such a statement or in the application itself.
(2.) The petition must be rejected for another reason also. The objections raised before me were never taken up by the Petitioner in the reply which he made to the application filed by the decree holder under Rule 66. Not having raised them at that stage, he is precluded from banking on them now because the matter must be considered to have been decided against him so as to debar him from raising it again on the principal of constructive res -judicata (vide Gauri v. Ude : A.I.R. 1942 Lah. 153(F.B.).
(3.) For the reasons stated, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 10 / -.;