ORDER

This special leave petition arises against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated April 17,1996 in MFA No. 146/96. The admitted position is that the father of the respondents had a money decree in O.S.A. No. 1,32/89. The Civil Judge vide decree dated January 12, 1994 granted a sum of Rs. 2.,50,000/- and costs with future interest at the rate of 6% on all the defendants including the petitioner. All were jointly and severally liable. Consequently, execution came to be filed on April 21,1994 to recover a sum of Rs. 3,33,860/-. Though three items of the property belonging to the petitioner were listed for execution and attached under Order 21 Rule 54, CPC only one of the items, namely, 8 acres and odd of agricultural land was brought to sale. In fact the property sold on August 26 1995 was purchased by 5th resort for Rs. 6,40,000. The petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC read with Section 47 challenging the sale. It is contended primarily that proclamation of the sale under Order 21 Rule 66, CPC did not contain valuation of the property and, therefore, the sale conducted in furtherance thereof was not valid in law. It is also contented