Judgment-debtor is entitled to notice.

This is an appeal against an order of the learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated 21st April, 1965, dismissing E.A. No. 297 of 1964 in O.S. No. 107 of 1953. The said E.A. itself was filed by supplemental defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 107 of 1953, under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside a sale of the house property sold in execution of the decree passed against them in O.S. 107 of 1953 on 19th June, 1963. The sale was knocked down in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,05,000, on 19th June, 1963 and the application was filed on 17th July, 1963. In the said application, the appellants herein had taken the following three grounds for the purpose of setting aside the sale; (1) due notice of the execution or of the application to reduce the upset price has not been served on the petitioners; (2) the property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price inasmuch as the decree-holder has been able to knock off the property for a price which will be a third of its real value; and (3) that by reason of the fraud committed by the decree-holders in getting the upset price reduced i.e., without notice to the petitioners, the property did not fetch a proper price at the sale ,with the result that the sale held on 19th June, 1963 resulted in. substantial prejudice to the appellants. The learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that, with regard to the application filed by the decree-holder for reduction of the upset price previously fixed, the appellants herein were not entitled to any notice, and therefore there was no irregularity or illegality of the conduct of the sale. With regard to the second point, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the property was not sold for an inadequate price and consequently the appellants herein had not suffered substantial injury on account of any irregularity in the matter of the publication of sale as contended for on their behalf.

Before I deal with the point urged before me, it is better to refer to the facts that had taken place anterior to the sale of the property, as stated by the learned Subordinate Judge himself, in the judgment, the correctness of which was not disputed before me:

“The execution application for attachment and sale of the property of the judgment-debtor, the late Thiagaraja Bhagavathar was filed as early as 5th December, 1959 against the heirs of the late M.K. Thiagaraja Bhagavathar of whom the petitioners are the daughters. Notice was ordered under Order 21, rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, in the said application on 17th March, 1960. As the petitioners herein were not served, fresh notice was ordered on 22nd April, 1960 for 29th June, 1960. The said notices were returned with endorsement absent affixed and hence on 29th June, 1960, the Court was pleased to order fresh notice by substituted service for 22nd July, 1960. The substituted service ordered was effected on the petitioners and since they were absent they were declared ex parte on 1st August, 1960 after accepting the service as sufficient. In those circumstances it will be idle now to contend that no notice was issued to them under Order 21, rule 66, Civil Procedure Code. As regards the other complaint that they were not served with notices for the subsequent applications for the reduction of upset prices it is found that originally upset price was fixed at 5 lakhs. As the property was not sold the decree-holders filed an application under E.A. No. 807 of 1960 for the reduction of upset price from five lakhs to two lakhs. In that petition also notice was ordered on 14th December, 1960 for 9th January, 1961. As the petitioners were not served for that hearing date a fresh notice was also ordered and since these petitioners were absent on the date of hearing they were set ex parte. Then the upset price was reduced to Rs. 4,05,000. There were no bidders for that sale. The decree-holders filed E.A. No. 810 of 1962 to redu