This petition of revision is directed against the order dated 31-7-1951 by which the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D., directed the Munsiff of Barpeta to hold a sale in execution. The peti­tion is by one of the three judgment-debtors. The facts leading to the petition are as follows :

Some 8 lessas of land belonging to the petitioner and his co-judgment-debtors (opposite parties 3 and 4) were mortgaged to one Surendra Narayan Burabhakat. The mortgagee obtained a decree for sale on the basis of his mortgage. After this decree, opposite parties 3 and 4 (co-judgment-debtors) sold their 2/3rd share of the land in dis­pute to Opposite Party 2. In the course of the execution proceeding, he put in a claim by which ,he prayed for the release of the 2/3rd share of the mortgaged property sold to him by two out of the three judgment-debtors. The petitioner states that he did not receive any notice of this claim petition. On 24-6-1950, the 2/3rd share, sold to Opposite Party 2, was released. The decree-holder agreed to proceed against the l/3rd share belonging to the petitioner. On 27-2-1951, the petitioner-judgment-debtor put in a petition of objection urging that the decree-holder is not entitled to recover the mortgage money still due to him by sale only of his l/8th share of the property as the mortgage security was indivisible. On 4-4-1951, the learned advocate for the decree-holder stated that the decree-holder did not want to proceed against the two other judgment-debtors and merely wanted to realise l/3rd of the decretal amount from l/3rd share of the property belonging to the peti­tioner. A written petition to this effect was put in on behalf of the decree-holder on 20-4-1951. On 5-5-1931, the Court ordered the judgment-debtor to put in his statement in answer to the decree-holder's petition. On 17-5-1951, the next hearing in the case, the judgment-debtor did not put in any statement and the decree-holder was allowed to take further steps in execution. The order-passed on 17th May is very brief. It is as follows: "Judgment debtor takes no steps. Decree holder to take steps on 28-5-1951."

This order virtually disposes of the judgment-debtor's objection. His position was that execution against l/3rd share of the property should not be allowed to proceed on certain legal grounds. The decree-holder insisted on realising only l/3rd share of the mortgage money from the 1/3rd share be­longing to the petitioner. In the absence of any answer to decree-holder's claim, the point of difference between the decree .holder and the petitioner-judgment-debtor was practically dis­posed of by order dated 17-5-1951. The order of 31-7-1951 was merely a consequential order by which the Munsiff was directed to hold the sale. [2] It is contended now on behalf of the peti­tioner that there has been no proper disposal of the objection put in by the petitioner-judgment-debtor and -that in any case, the order of the Court directing sale of l/3rd share of- the property is illegal and the before the order is not sustain able. So far as the first objection is concerned, the order of 17-5-1951 by which the Court virtually disposed of the point on which the decree-holder and the petitioner-judgment-debtor were in issue is no doubt wanting in an express statement that I the objection of the petitioner-judgment-debtor is disposed of. On the other hand, it is obvious that the objection was in fact disposed of as the decree-holder was allowed to take steps in furtherance of the execution proceeding. The irregularity may be regarded as material only if the petitioner-judgment-debtor has been prejudiced on the merits.

[3] Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel for the decree holder, contends that the order by which the Court directed the execution to proceed is per­fectly legal and as such no prejudice has beer. caused and the before the irregularity, if any, in the proceeding is not material. He contends, in these circumstances, that there would be no justi­fication for interfe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document