Omissions in the proclamation of sale, such as the omission to mention the value of the property, the place of sale, and the time of sale, do not invalidate the sale unless they are material irregularities and the objector proves loss or prejudice resulting from them.

( 1 ) THIS is a judgment-debtors appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Bareilly rejecting his objections under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. against the sale of his property in execution of a decree and confirming the sale.

( 2 ) MR. Singh, who argued the case for the appellant with ability, raised several contentions against the validity of the proclamation of sale which was made under Order XXI Rule 66 C. P. C. First, he stated that the value of the property had not been mentioned in the proclamation and urged that this is a material irregularity. But Order XXI, Rule 66, does not enjoin that the value of the property should be specified in the proclamation. Clause (e) of sub-Rule (2) requires that the proclamation shall specify "every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the nature and value of the property. " The language of this clause shows that the Court is not required to specify the value of the property but only such materials which will enable the prospective purchaser to make his own estimate of its value. In fact, this clause impliedly suggests that it would not be proper for the court to influence the mind of any prospective purchaser by its own estimate of value. It would be somewhat inconsistent for a provision to require the Court to give its own estimate of the value of the property and also require it to place before the prospective purchaser sufficient material to form his own estimate of the value. The Court would be placed in a not very dignified position if any purchaser afterwards complains that the courts estimate of the value of the property was incorrect. This was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Md. Said Khan v. Md. Abdus Sami, AIR 1932 All 664, in which it was held that it is not necessary to give the estimated value of the property in a sale proclamation. It was further observed,

"the value of property is "difficult in most cases to ascertain, and the insertion of the value would always give rise to a dispute later, unless the parties were agreed as to the value to be put in the sale proclamation. "

( 3 ) IN Sadatmand Khan v. Mt. Phul Kuar, ILR 20 All 412 (PC), it was held that the value of property, when stated in the proclamation of the intended sale, is a material fact, and if the property is under-valued, this would amount to a material misrepresentation. However, in that case it was observed by the Privy Council that the estimate of value had been made gratuitously by the decree-holder and the court and inserted in the sale proclamation. The use of the word "gratuitously" shows that, in the view of the Privy Council, there was no rule requiring publication of the value in the proclamation.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied upon an observation of Sulaiman, J. in Rup Kishore v. Collector of Etah, AIR 1929 All 948 which runs as follows:

"it is difficult to say that in all cases an omission to specify the valuation is necessarily a material irregularity, though there may be circumstances in which it may become necessary to specify the value in order to enable the bidder to judge of the value of the property. " this was an obiter dictum made en passant, but the learned Judge held in the circumstances of that case, that the omission to specify the value of the property in the proclamation did not invalidate the sale. The observation at the most amounts to this that in rare cases it may be necessary to specify the value of the property. The learned judge may have had in mind cases where, due to the peculiar nature of the property, the normal method of valuation fails and it is necessary to put a price on the property. I, therefore, hold that the omission to state the value of property does not invalidate the sale in this case.

( 5 ) MR. Singh next contended that the place of the sale had not been mentioned in the proclamation and that this omission rendered the sale a complete nullity. He