1. The present revision application is directed against an appellate order by which the findings of the trial Court in execution proceeding that the execution sale was valid has been reversed. The petitioner is the decree-holder and the Opposite Party is the judgment-debtor whose land has been auction-sold through process of Court in execution of the decree for cost. Brief fact material to appreciate the contention is that the plaintiff got a decree as against the defendant to cut and remove certain branches of Sertree at the cost of defendant. Defendant not having removed the same the plaintiff sought to execute the decree. The defendant says that having received such notice in execution he requested for time to do it himself.lt is further alleged that notwithstanding such prayer the plaintiff decree-holder then cut and removed the trees. The total cost incurred was about Rs. 150/-. To recover the said cost certain landed properties of the judgment-debtor was sought to be auctioned. The decree-holder was the sole applicant in the auction and purchased nine and half Kathas of land lying along municipal road for about Rs. 350/- in auction dated 2.7.1975. The sale was confirmed and thereafter application to set aside the sale having been filed purporting to be under Order XXI Rule 90 was dismissed by the executing Court against which appeal was preferred. An appeal was allowed on three counts. Firstly, in terms of Order XXI Rule 72 the decree-holder was prohibited from participating in purchase and as such, the purchase was without permission of Court which was void. Secondly, it was held that the sale notification was not duly served on the judgment-debtor which vitiated the sale and thirdly, the price at which the property was sold was grossly inadequate i.e. nine and half kathas of valuable land next to municipal road was sold at Rs. 350/- it was considered very low for the year 1975 itself. The present revision application is against the said appellate order.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. So far as the ground taken by the appellate court is concerned, I am afraid neither the Court nor the learned lawyer assisting Court cared to look the statute books. Order 21 Rule 72 thus in terms prohibits purchase by decree-holder but there is a Patna amendment. The Patna amendment in terms reverses the situation. The Patna amendment clearly stipulates that a decree-holder is not precluded from purchasing unless otherwise ordered by the Court. In this view of the matter, the findings of the appellate Court cannot be sustained. There was nothing to preclude the decree-holder from participating and/or purchasing properties being sold in execution. Now coming to the second ground that the sale notification was not properly served on the judgment-debtor is concerned, even assuming that it was not properly served it does not vitiate the sale inasmuch as any irregularity in service of notice would not vitiate the sale unless it is shown that material prejudice has been caused because of such irregularity in service. The Court has not given their definite findings in this regard, the consequence whereof I will indicate later. The third ground was that the price was inadequate. It is well settled that sale at low price in a Court auction by itself is no ground for setting aside a sale. It is not a fact that in Courts sale there is hardly any participation and prices are normally low. That by itself does not vitiate the sale. The sale in such a situation stands vitiated only it is the price which is shocking to the conscience of the Court and this finding has to be based on materials on record. It is a finding of fact. In the present case apart from saying that it was at grossly low price that the property was sold nothing more has been dealt with.

4. I, accordingly, set aside the order of the appellate Court and remand the matter to the appellate Court to give proper findings on the two issues aforesaid after hearing both the parties afresh