BIPIN BIHARI BEJALI Vs. KANTI CHANDRA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the petition for revision before us attack an appellate order refusing to set aside an execution sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing it

(2.) As to the appeal, it is, and must be, conceded that, if the original application for the setting aside of the sale was within the scope of Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no second appeal lies. But it is contended that the application did not fall under that rule, neither of the irregularities complained of by the judgment-debtor being an "irregularity in publishing the sale," and that it must, therefore, be held to have been made under Section 47 of the Code, in connection with which there is a right of second appeal.

(3.) The irregularities in question are: (1) the failure to publish in the manner prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 54(2), the order for the attachment of the judgment-debtor s immoveable property, and (2) the omission to issue the notice required by Rule 66(2) to be given to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor before a sale proclamation is drawn up.