After the amendment of Order 21, Rule 66, C.P.C., the court is under no obligation to notify an upset price of its own in sale proclamations. The court is only required to state the valuations given by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor.

ORDER : These are three matters in which the first two applications wherein interim stay had been granted are coming up for final order and the third civil revision petition is coming up for admission along with the civil miscellaneous petition for grant of stay.

2. The point taken in all these three matters is the same viz., whether the lower Courts notifying in the sale proclamations the decree-holders valuation and the judgment-debtors valuation but without endeavouring to fix its own valuation, even though naturally these contending valuations differ, constitute an error of jurisdiction inviting interference in revision.

3. There is conflict of decisions, as pointed out in the A.I.R. Commentaries on the C. P. Code, 5th Edn., Vol. II, p. 2461. as to whether under this rule a Court is under a duty to state its own estimate of the value of the property to be sold in the sale proclamation. This High Court in Srinivasan v. Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 1949 Mad 398 (A); Thiruvengadasami v. Govindasami, AIR 1928 Mad 503 (B); Veeraswami v. Kalyanasundaram, AIR 1927 Mad 1009 (1) (C); Thiruvengadasami v. Govindasamy, AIR 1927 Mad 943 (D) and the High Court of Allahabad in Kalka Pershad v. Jangi Singh, AIR 1932 All 664 (E), have held that the Court is under no such obligation. On the other hand, it has been held by the High Court of Patna : Raghunathi Singh v. Hazari Sahu, AIR 1917 Pat 381: 2 Pat LJ 130 (FB) (F); Luchi Rai v. Raghubir Dube, AIR 1918 Pat 372 (G); Damrupat Singh v. Rameshwar Singh, AIR 1923 Pat 445 (H); (See also Suraj Narain v. Biseshwar Singh, AIR 1940 Pat 707 (I) - Valuation to be determined on the existing materials on record as also by the High Courts of Calcutta (Pashupati Nath v. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1932 Cal 141 (J); Ban Behari v. Bankhan Lal, AIR 1933 Cal 511 (K); New Birbhum Coal Co. v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1934 Cal 205 (L); Ramessur Prasad v. Rai Sha Kissen, 8 Cal WN 257 (M) etc.) (But see Kashi Prashad Singh v. Jamna Prasad Sahu, ILR 31 Cal 922 (N)- Court not required to make an investigation), and Rangoon and the Chief Court of lower Burma that it is the duty of the Court to enter in the sale proclamation its own estimate of the value of the property.

The Bombay High Court has held in a decision, Charandas v. Dossabhoy, AIR 1939 Bom 182 (O), that it is not necessary in every case to value the property to be sold and to state the value in the sale proclamation; but the Court may, if it thinks fit, do so. But in Sitabai v. Gangadhar, AIR 1935 Bom 331 (P), it was held by the same High Court that the Court is bound to hold an inquiry as to the value of the property and state the value in the sale proclamation. Opinion in the Nagpur Judicial Commissioners Court is divided, Madanlal v. Ripusudan Prasad, AIR 1930 Nag 191 (Q). Though, as seen above, the Calcutta High Court holds that it is the duty of the Court to enter in the sale proclamation its own valuation of the property to be sold, it has also been held by that Court that in exceptional cases, the Court will be justified in not attempting to give a valuation of its own and in confining itself to stating the values given by the parties: Basanta Kumar v. Sylhet Loan Co. Ltd., AIR 1932 Cal 576 (R): Debendra Nath v. Radhakissen, AIR 1931 Cal 520 (S). In any view, the omission of the Court to give an estimate of the value is a mere irregularity and does not by itself vitiate the sale.

4. Under the rule as amended by the High Courts of Calcutta, Lahore, Madras, Nagpur and Patna, and the Judicial Commissioners Court of N. W. F. Province, the Court is not bound to give its own estimate of the value of the property, but is only required to state the value given by the parties (see Local Amendments). In view of this, the decisions of the High Courts of Calcutta and Patna and the Judicial Commissioners Court of Nagpur passed before the above amendments, holding that the Court was under a duty to state its own estimate of the value of the property should be treated as no lo