The limitation period for filing an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code begins from the date of knowledge of the sale proclamation, not from the date of sale, if the judgment-debtor was not served with a notice of the sale proclamation.

P. S. Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the auction purchaser opposite-party. There is no appearance at the hearing of this application on behalf of the decree-holder opposite-party.

2. The learned Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Motihari has rejected the application filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor petitioners for setting aside sale of a shop belonging to them and run in the name and style of M/s. Arun Vastralaya, on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 .

3. The decree-holder opposite-party (the State Bank of India) had advanced a loan to the petitioners, which loan the petitioners failed to repay. The Bank instituted Money Suit No.50 of 1978 which was eventually heard and decided against the petitioners by the learned Subordinate Judge, Motihari. When the said decree was put in execution, the petitioners appeared and prayed for instalments. The learned Subordinate Judge directed for the satisfaction of the decree by payment of the decretal amount in instalments. The petitioners thereafter paid some instalments but failed in paying off all the instalments. This occasioned attachment of the shop of the petitioners and sale thereof in the sale conducted on 10-10-1983. The auction purchaser (Opposite-party No.2)purchased the shop for a sum of Rs.3,000 only. Before, however, the sale was confirmed on 22-12-1983, the petitioners applied for setting aside the sale on grounds, inter alia, that the property sold was grossly under-valued and that no notice of the said sale was ever served upon any one of them. Holding, however, that the application on behalf of the petitioners was one under order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it had to be filed within thirty days of the sale and finding that the application was filed beyond the period of thirty days, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the prayer to set aside the sale and rejected the application.

4. The petitioners thereafter moved this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Admitting the application to hearing on 28-3-1984, this Court directed that further proceedings in the execution case would remain stayed subject to the conditions that the petitioners would pay to the credit of the decree-holder opposite-party No.1 a sum of Rs.4,000 within two months from that date and would further pay the remains claims of the decree-holder within two months thereafter. While the petitioners paid Rs.4,000, as directed, they applied by making a fresh application for extension of time for depositing the remaining amount of arrears on the ground that they were prevented in depositing the money as directed by this Court, because petitioner No.2 who was a chronic patient of leprosy, had fallen seriously ill. This Court extended the time for depositing the remainder of the decretal money. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners that the entire decretal money has been deposited by the petitioners in the execution case.

5. A judgment-debtor defaulting in satisfying the decree makes himself liable to attach any property belonging to the judgment-debtor and issue proclamation of the intended sale of the attached property for the satisfaction of the decree. The decision to sell any property attached by the court or such portion thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the decree as provided under order XXI, Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be taken by the court concerned and has to be conducted by an officer of the court or by such other person as the court may appoint in this behalf as prescribed under Order XXI, rule 65 of the Code. Such sale has to be made by public auction and a proclamation to the said effect has to be issued as provided under Order XXI, rule 66 of the Code. Clause (2) of Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code requires that the proclamation has to be