Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Tehal Singh Judgment-debtor against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dated 22nd May, 1979.
(2.) Briefly the facts are that a final decree for recovery of Rs. 14,818.00 was passed in favour of Sharan Singh decree-holder on 20th Nov., 1974 on the basis of mortgage deed of land in dispute. He started execution against the judgment-debtor. Notice under Order 21, rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ordered to be issued on 17th May, 1975 for 28th July, 1975. It was served upon the judgment-debtor by substituted service as his whereabouts were not known. Thereafter the date of the sale was fixed as 19th Sept., 1975. The judgment-debtor filed an objection petition on 26th Aug. 1975 challenging the decree passed against him. It was also mentioned therein that notice under Order 21, rule 66 was not served on him. The notice was issued in the application for the 24th Sept., 1975, On 19th Sept. 1975 the land was auctioned for Rs. 22,000.00 which was purchased by Gurpal Singh now respondent No. 2 in the revision petition The judgment-debtor filed objections against the sale on 12th November. 1976, 7th December,1976 and 13th March, 1978 inter alia on the ground' that the land was sold for inadequate consideration The applications were opposed by the decree-holder. The auction-purchaser had not been made a party .in the petition. All the petitions were dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 28th April, 1978. An appeal against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide the impugned order. The judgment-debtor has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by Mr. Ujagar Singh that proper notice under Order 21, rule 66 was not served on the petitioner by which he was highly prejudiced. I have duly considered that argument but regret my inability to accept the same. No such objection was taken by the petitioner either before the executing Court or the appellate Court. Now he cannot be allowed to raise the point in this Court, in a revision petition. I have also examined the matter otherwise and find that there is no substance in it. The petitioner came to know that his property was going to be auctioned on 19th Sept. 1975 much before that date. However, he did not raise an objection in the objection petition dated 29th Aug., 1979 that the particulars given in the proclamation of sale were not properly given It was his duty to bring that fact to the notice of the Court if he was challenging the sale proclamation.;