Beni Prasad v. Edal Singh Opposite Party.

Atkinson, J.:— This is an application made by the petitioner to set aside an order made by the learned Second Subordinate Judge of Patna on 15th August, 1917. It was an order settling a sale proclamation in an execution matter and the ground of objection to the order is that it directed that the sale proclamation should contain two valuations: one assessed by the decree-holder and the other fixed by the Court. It is contended that the order is bad; and reliance is placed on the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Raghunath Singh v. Hazari Sahu(1). The ruling in that case is not quite on all fours with the present case, but I think the principle applies, viz., that the insertion of any valuation in the sale proclamation other than the valuation fixed by the Court is calculated to mislead intending bidders and therefore wrong. The learned Subordinate Judge should not insert in sale proclamations the valuations assessed by either the decree-holder or by the judgment-debtor. The learned Judge in allowing in this case the valuation of the decree-holder to be stated in the sale proclamation acted in contravention of the ruling in Raghunath Singh v. Hazari Sahu.

2. We do not think it necessary to send the case back to the learned Judge to reopen the question of valuation.

3. We direct that the valuation stated by the decree-holder in the sale proclamation be struck out and let the sale proceed on the valuation already fixed by the learned Court below.

4. Chapman, J.:— I agree.

V.S/R.K

5. Application allowed.