ORDER

1. The finding of the High Court is that there was no pubfication whatsoever of the proclamation of sale. If that is so, there can be no doubt that the sale is void and Section 47 is, therefore, attracted. Shri T. S. Krishnamurthy lyer, learned counsel for the appellants argues that Order 21 Rule 90 is attracted and not Section 47. He relies on the case S. A. Sundararajan v. A. P. V. Rajendran. {(1981) 2 SCR 600} We have perused the decision. It is a case which clearly dealt with irregularities in the settling of the proclamation of sale and not a case of non-publication of the sale proclamation. Shri T. S. Krishnamurthy lyer particularly invites our attention to the following observations of the court : (SCC p. 721, para 6)

It may be pointed out that when Rule 90 of Order 21 employs the expression "in publishing or conducting the sale", it envisages the proceeding commencing after the order for sale made under Rule 64 of the Order 21. The provisions after Rule 64 are provisions relating to publishing and conducting the sale. Setting the proclamation of sale is part of the proceeding for publishing the sale.

2. These observations only mean that on (sic) proceedings prior to the