RIPUSUDAN PERSHAD Vs. NANKU PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF the violation of the provisions of Rule 1(2), Order 41, Civil P.C., which is of almost daily occurrence in this Court, it would be hard to find a worse instance than that afforded by the present petition of appeal. The one relevant contention in it can be unearthed only with great difficulty from the mass of irrelevant narrative and obviously unsound argument it contains.

(2.) THAT one contention is that there was a material irregularity in the proclamation of the sale of the appellant's property in execution of the decree against him which caused him substantial injury. The irregularity is said to be the failure to enter an estimate of the value of the property in the proclamation. That is nowhere prescribed, nor is it in the least necessary. It is certainly done usually, probably with some idea behind it of Clause (e), Rule 66(2), Order 21, but it is hard to see how the Court's estimate of the value could even help an intending purchaser to judge of it. Indeed the estimate of the value always entered, (which the learned Judge thought ought to have been entered in this case, though the omission made no difference) is not the Court's estimate at all, but the decree-holder's.

(3.) THE order of the lower Court contains the statement that it is the duty of the decree-holder to furnish the Court with all the details mentioned in Clause (2), Rule 66 (2), Order 21, though they do not necessarily include the value of the property. As has been said, there is hardly a casa in which it is even worthwhile to mention that detail, but it is both obvious and also stated in Rule 66(4) that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain all the details which it considers are necessary, and it is surely the judgment debtor who is most interested in stating them and best able to do so.