( 1 ) ON a reference made by Jagannatha Shetty, J. the above revision petition has come up for hearing before this Division Bench. It arises out of an application (I. A. 3) filed by the petitioner under Order XXI, Rule 90, cpc for setting asi,de a sale of immovable property belonging to him held on 11-4-1963 in Ex. C. No. 476/62 on the file of the Munsiff, pavanagere. The respondent had filed the above execution petition against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,846-86. The sale notice in the above case was issued to the petitioner on 30-11-1962 and on his refusal to receive the same, service on the petitioner was held sufficient by the Munsiff. Thereafter, an application (I. A. 1) was filed by the petitioner requesting the court to hear him on the objections that he had filed to the execution proceedings. After several adjournments, the case was set down for hearing of I. A. 1 on 1-3-1963. When the case was called on 1-3-1963, the judgment- debtor was absent and hence I. A. 1 filed by him was dismissed. The Court directed that the property be sold on 11-4-1963.

( 2 ) ON 9-4-1963, the decree-holder filed an application (I. A. 2) under or. XXI, R. 72 CPC praying that he might be permitted to offer bid at the sale and to set off the decretal amount against the price payable at the sale. The executing Court passed an order which reads as follows : " Permitted to bid for the estimated value and set off allowed. " the property was accordingly sold on 11-4-1963 and the highest bid of rs. 8,000 offered by the respondent was accepted by the Court. The respondent did not deposit twenty-five per cent of the purchase money as required by Or. XXI, R. 84 (1) CPC as the decretal amount was more than rs. 2,000. He however deposited in time the balance of purchase money after setting off the decretal amount in accordance with R. 85 of Or. XXI. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 14-6-1963 to pass orders regarding the confirmation of sale. On 13-6-1963, the petitioner filed the above application under or. XXI, R. 90 CPC for setting aside the sale held on 11-4-63

( 3 ) THE following allegations were made in the said application : (1) That on 1-3-1963. on account of the sad demise of Dr. Rajendra prasad who was the former President of India, the Courts were closed that day having been declared as a public holiday and the petitioner did not know actually what happened in Court in the above execution case on that date. He came to know only on 10-6-1963 that his property had been sold on 11-4-1963. Since no notice was given to him regarding the further execution proceedings after 11-4-1963, the sale held on 11-4-1963 was liable to be set aside. (2) That the proclamation of sale had not been properly drawn up and that there was no due publicity of sale. It was alleged that there were no bidders at all when the sale was held. The fact that the sale was not held at the spot where the property was situated was also made a ground of attack in the said petition.

( 4 ) IN addition to the above averments which come under Or. XXI, r. 90 CPC, it was also pleaded that the entire sale proceedings were void since no part of the bid amount was deposited by the respondent as required by Rule 84 (1) of Or. XXl CPC on the date of sale. It was contended that in view of the non-compliance with the said provison, the sale was void.

( 5 ) THE respondent denied the various allegations made in the application of the petitioner. He contended that the sale proceedings were valid and that the sale was not liable to be set aside. The several allegations of fact made by the petitioner regarding the conduct of sale were also denied.

( 6 ) EXECUTING Court after enquiry htld that the petitioner had not made out that there was any material irregularity in the conduct of sale which had the effect of vitiating the sale held on 11-4-63. It was also held that'the petitioner had not established that on account of the irreglarities, if there weie any, he was materially