1. It has never been held that the omission to state the value of the property is a material irregularity. When the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor differ hopelessly as to the probable value of the property, a statement as to the value by the Court is at best a guess and the Court may, in the circumstances of a particular case, consider it better to abstain from such guess. The case in Saadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar(1), decided that where a Court has chosen to state the value in the proclamation, a gross under-statement is a serious irregularity. The other cases relied on by the vakil for the appellant do not help him the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
2. Appeal dismissed.