JUDGMENT

1. In this case, the Subordinate Judge has allowed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., and set aside a sale on the ground that there was no legal attachment, as the writ of attachment gave an inaccurate description of the property sold. The boundaries of the property were correctly given, but instead of describing it as 46/6, Canal East Road, No. 46/1 was given. He held that there was in fact no attachment of the property to be sold, i.e., No. 46/6, but that the attachment was made of No. 46/1. The question in the appeal, therefore, is whether a sale held without attachment is necessarily bad.

2. The appellant decree-holder contends that the omission to attach is a mere irregularity, while the respondent judgment-debtor relies upon Order 21, Rule 64 of the Code and two decisions, namely, the decision of Fletcher, J., in Panchanan Das Majumdar v. Kunja Behari Malo [1917] 42 I.C. 259 and that of the Judicial Committee in Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram Marviari [1914] 41 Cal. 590 for the proposition that the sale was without jurisdiction.

3. The question arose under Act 8 of 1859, in the case of Macnaghten v. Mahabir Pershad Singh [1883] 9 Cal. 656 but was given up a