C. M. Lodba, J. - 1. This appeal by one of the judgment-debtors Shantabai arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder in respect of which a preliminary decree on the basis of a mortgage deed was passed on 19-11-59 and final decree on 27-3-62. It is not disputed that the sale was made absolute on 11-8-65 and a sale certificate was granted in favour of the auction -purchasers Madhav, Shriram, Jugal Kishore and Suryakant (who will hereinafter be referred to as auction purchasers) on 14-8-65. The objection made by Shantabai under S.47 C.P.C. out of which the present appeal arises was filed on 25-11-69 on the ground that the sale is a nullity in as much as no notice was served upon her either under O.21. R.22 or under O.21. R.66 C.P.C. The executing Court did not issue notice of this application either to the decree-holder or to the auction-purchasers, but dismissed it summarily by its order dated 5-12-69 on the ground that notice-under O.22. R.66 had been duly served upon the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge. Gwalior. Shanta Bai has filed this miscellaneous appeal under S.96 read with S.47 C.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that the lower Court was not justified in rejecting the objection summarily without notice to the opposite party and without recording evidence on the points raised in the objection It is argued that no notice under O.22. R. 66 C.P.C. was served upon the appellant and, therefore, the sale is a nullity. In this connection it has also been urged that the substituted service affected on the appellant by publication of notice in the newspaper 'Navprabhat' was illegal inasmuch as there is nothing on the record to show that it was not possible to serve the notice on the appellant personally at Ratlam where she was residing with her son.

3. On the other hand. Mr. B.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the auction, purchasers has contended that the objection filed by the appellant in the lower Court was barred by limitation and the. Court was perfectly justified in dismissing It summarily. He has also argued that the sale cannot be set aside for want of notice to the appellant under O.21, R. 66 C.P.C. as she was adequately represented by the co-judgment-debtors and thus the doctrine of effective representation applied to the case. Lastly, he has argued that when personal service of the notice under O.21, R.66 was found to be not possible substituted service was affected on the appellant and the same cannot be considered to be invalid.

4. Before embarking upon the consideration of the contentions raised on behalf of either party, I may observe that the appellant's case rests purely on' want of notice under O.21, R.66 C.P.C. on the appellant. Consequently, before addressing myself to other objections advanced on behalf of the auction purchasers, I would deal with this point first.

5. It is worthy of note that the suit was instituted against Smt Sunderbai widow of Dinkarrao. her daughter-in-law Smt. Kamlabai widow of Gopalrao, Smt. Shakuntlabai, another daughter-in-law of Smt. Sundrabai & Shantabai & Sakhubai daughers of Smt; Sundrabai as fat back as 29-8-1956. Smt. Shantabai was hereself party to the suit and it is not a case of legal representatives of a party coming with an objection in the course of execution. It also needs to be noticed that Smt. Sakhubai, the other daughter of Sundrabai and sister of the present appellant Shantabai filed an objection under O.21 R.90 C.P.C. on 12-8-64. This was dismissed on 30-11-64 and the appeal filed by Smt. Sundra Bai was dismissed by the High Court on 14-9-65. Her prayer for Letters Patent Appeal as well as for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court were also rejected. It may also be mentioned here that the appellant was a party to the appeal though a proforma respondent before the High Court and it would not be unreasonable to presume that she had knowledge of this appeal and must h