( 1 ) BOTH the above cases relate to the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kanpur, and may conveniently be disposed of by one common judgment.

( 2 ) THE material facts lie within a short compass. Shrimati Satayawati Jain along with some other persons obtained a decree against Shrimati Premwati, who is the appellant in Execution First appeal No. 109 of 1952 and the applicant in Civil Revision No. 713 of 1952, on 29-10-1949. It was a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit. An application for execution was made by the decree-holders on 16-2-1950. Notices fixing the date for settlement of the particulars of the sale proclamation was issued on 7-2-1952. Owing to the death of His Majesty King George VI the courts were closed on that date and the cases fixed for that date were taken up the next day. On 8-2-1952, the judgment-debtor filed objections mentioning a number of grounds against the execution of the decree. It was complained by her that inasmuch the decree-holder had not filed a written statement as was required by law for settlement of the particulars of the sale proclamation, she was unable to file a proper objection. It was ordered that the application he registered as a miscellaneous case under Section 47, Civil P. C. , and be put up the next day. When the case was taken up, the objector was absent and the objections were dismissed for default. The main execution case was also taken up the same day and an order directing that a sale proclamation be prepared in accordance with the directions given was made. The sale proclamation was prepared accordingly and on 11-2-1952, it was ordered that a warrant be issued for holding an auction sale of the property on 26-3-1952,

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that according to the decree-holders, the property sought to be sold was worth Rs. 70,000. On 8-15-1952, the judgment-debtor made another application praying that the ex parte order passed against her on 9-2-1952, be set aside, the particulars of the sale proclamation be amended and the sale be stayed meanwhile. It was held by the learned Civil judge that an application for setting aside an order like the one passed by him on 9-2-1952, did not lie and the application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with this order, the present appeal and the revision application have been filed. Mr. Varma, who appeared for the judgment-debtor, stated that he had filed his revision application by way of abundant caution.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was raised by Dr. Asthana to the hearing of this appeal. Relying on the observations of Sulaiman J. in Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh, A. I. R. 1939 F. c. 74 at p. 80, Dr. Asthana contended that no appeal lay in the present case. This was contested by Mr. Varma, Having considered the matter carefully, we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection should prevail. It was laid down in the Federal Court case, to which reference has just been made that an order under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P. C. is not a judicial adjudication of any question arising between the parties to the execution but merely the issuing of directions as to the mode of proclamation of sale. Sulaiman J, further observed:

"it is really difficult to see how the approximate estimation of the value of the property can over be regarded as a determination of any question arising between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P. C. "

He further added:"there seems to be a perfect unanimity among all the Indian High Courts that the fixing of the value of the property under this rule (Order 21, Rule 66) is by no means an adjudication within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P. 0. and such an order is not appealable as a decree. "

He cited a large number of authorities including several cases of our own Court in support of the view taken by him. Mr. Varma sought to distinguish this case by saying that the observations were obiter and that they wore not concurred in by the oth