JUDGMENT

1. This rule is issued against an order of the District Judge of Barisal revering an order of the Subordinate Judge of that place setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge bad held that there were suppression of sale processes and other material irregularities and set aside the sale accordingly. The learned District Judge on appeal proceeded upon one single point, namely, the absence of proof of service of notice on the decree-holder. It may be remarked that in this case the decree-holder was the auction-purchaser. The learned District Judge has found that there was no proof of service of notice of the application on the decree-holder which is necessary to entitle a Court to pass an order under Rule 90 and in this view of the matter dismissed the petitioner's application for setting aside the sale. This rule was obtained on the ground that the view taken by the Court below was wrong and that he bad no jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioner's application for setting aside the sale only on the ground that no notice was served on the decree-holder and auction-purchaser. In our judgment there is a great deal of force in th