Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. If this matter were free from authority I should incline to the view that non-compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 22 was a material irregularity, and not an illegality which would make the subsequent sale a nullity. in England there was a rule of Common Law that judgments after the lapse of a year and a day could not be executed unless an order for what was known as a scire facias was first obtained. There are authorities to the effect that the disregard of that rule rendered a subsequent sale in execution voidable and not void Blanchenay v. Bart 4 QB 707 and Good Title v. Had Title 9 Dowl. 1009, and the same rule applies in America--See Freeman on Void Judicial Sales, page 97. But in my Judgment there are authorities here to the contrary which preclude such a view being taken here. here. In Gopal Chunder Chatterjee v. Gunamani Dasi (1892) ILR 20 C 370 their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court laid down that a notice under Section 248 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 was necessary in order that the Court should obtain jurisdiction to sell a property by way of execution as against the legal personal representatives of the d