ORDER.- This appeal arises out of an order of the lower Court rejecting the appellant’s petition under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale of a house held on 14th August, 1972 in - execution of a decree in. O.S. No. 445 of 1969.

2. The 2nd respondent obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 448 of 1969 and to realise the decree amount he filed E.P. No. 33 of 1972 for sale of the property. The property was actually sold on. 14th August, 1972 for Rs. 27,700. The appellant who was the 3rd defendant in the suit had filed E.A. No. 98 of 1973 to set aside the said sale on three grounds (1) that there was no proper service of notice on him before the sale was ordered; (2) that there was no proper publicity given to the proposed sale of the property; (3) that the property which is worth more than Rs. 60,000 was sold only for a sum of Rs. 27,700 which was resulted in. considerable loss and prejudice to him. In the counter-affidavit filed by the decree holder it has been stated that the appellant was aware of all the proceedings both prior and after the decree that he was served with notice at every stage, and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document