( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of our learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, in A. A. O. No. 707 of 79, which was preferred by the judgment-debtor, when his petition, E. A. No. 44 of 1978 in E. P. No. 44 of 1976 in O. S. No. 53 of 1974 was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE judgment-debtor filed E. A. No. 44 of 1978 for setting aside the sale under O. 21, R. 90 C. P. C. His contentions (1) that the proclamation of sale did not mention the judgment-debtors valuation and (2) that there is material difference between the valuation given in the publication and the valuation given in the proclamation and hence there is material irregularity committed in the conduct of the sale, are not accepted by the learned single Judge.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge took the view that the amended sub-r. (2) of R. 66 of O. 21, C. P. C. , does not require that the proclamation should state the value as given by the judgment-debtor and that the second proviso makes it clear that it is not necessary for the Court to mention its own valuation in the proclamation, but if, any value is given by either or both of the parties, it should find a place herein. He further held that inasmuch as the judgment-