VELUSAMI NAICKEN Vs. DHANAKOTI BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 20 of 1919, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, to set aside the sale in execution of the decree in that suit, under O.21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. Various irregularities alleged to vitiate the sale have been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but we are satisfied that there is no substance in any one of them.

(2.) It was stated that the sale proclamation was settled in the absence of the judgment- debtor. The facts show that the notice for the settlement of the sale proclamation was served on the appellant and in it was stated that the sale proclamation would be settled on 25th October 1924. On that day, he did not go before the Court. The proclamation as a matter of fact was not settled on that day but the consideration of the question was adjourned to 6th November 1924. It was again adjourned to 19 January 1925. If the sale proclamation was settled in the absence of the judgment-debtor, it was due to his own fault, because he did not present himself in Court on 25 October 1924. If he had done so, he would have known the precise date when it was intended to settle the sale proclamation.

(3.) We will now consider whether the proclamation was defective or the sale was held contravening any of the provisions of law.