( 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-debtor did not give his valuation of the property, he cannot complain that his valuation does not find a place in the proclamation and that the sale is, therefore, not vitiated. So holding, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal, A. A. O. No. 707 of 1979.

( 4 ) SRI. P. L. N. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that it is mandatory on the part of the Court to state the value as given by the judgment-debtor in the sale proclamation as per the provisions of sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21 of the old Act. He further contends that the E. P. No. 44 of 1976 was filed before the amended C. P. C. came into force and since the said E. P. was pending the provisions of the old Act would apply and hence sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21 of the old Act is mandatory to be complied with and thus the learned single Judge committed an error in taking the view that the amended proviso to sub-r. (2) (a) of R. 66 of O. 21 applies but not sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21 C. P. C. (old ).

( 5 ) WE find ourselves unable to accept this contention. It is true that sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21 of the old Act requires the Court to state in the sale proclamation the value of the property as given by (1) the decree-holder and (2) by the judgment-debtor. If the sale proclamation does not contain the value of the property given by the judgment-debtor as required under O. 21, R. 66 (2) (e), it was treated as material irregularity vitiating the sale.

( 6 ) OUR learned brother, Ramachandra Rao, J. , Held in M. P. Narisi Reddy v. M. Venkayya 1977 (1) APLJ 43 : (AIR 1977 Andh Pra 234) that the auction sales held on 25-7-1959 and its subsequent confirmation, are illegal and are liable to be set aside as the mandatory provisions of O. 21, R. 66 (2) cl. (e) were not complied with inasmuch as the judgment-debtors valuation was not mentioned in the sale proclamation. This decision was rendered on the basis of sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21of the old Code. But sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 6 of O. 21 of the old Code does not survive in the amended C. P. C. of 1976. In fact the present amended sub-r. (2) (e) of R. 66 of O. 21, C. P. C. , is entirely a different one, as it merely states that the proclamation should state every other thing which the court considers material for the purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property.

( 7 ) THE second proviso to sub-r. (2) of R. 66 of O. 21, C. P. C. , introduced by the Amended Act governs this aspect and it reads as follows:-"provided further that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given, by either or both of the parties. "

( 8 ) THE pro