JUDGMENT Mitra, J. - This is a suit to set aside a sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act held on the 29th June 1896, and confirmed on the 1st September 1896. The Plaintiffs' allegation, inter alia, was that the notice under sec. 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act was not served upon them and that the sale proclamation was not regularly served. The first Court decided in Plaintiffs' favour on both the points and set aside the sale. 2. In appeal by the Defendant No. 1, it was contended, as it had been contended for him in the first Court, that the suit was barred under the provisions of sec. 244, C. C. P. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal gave effect to that contention and dismissed the suit, He did not go into the question of fraud raised in the case or into the question of non-service of the certificate under sec. 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act or non-service of the proclamation of sale, It has been contended before us for the Appellants that sec. 244, C. C. P., does not apply to the case of execution proceedings held under the Public Demands Recovery Act, and as authority for that contention, the learned vakil for the Appellants has referred to the cases of Ram Tarak Hazra v. Mosahebali Shan 6 C. W. N. 246 : S. C. I. L. R. 29 Cal. 94 (1901) and Janki Das v. Ram Golam Sahu 6 C. W. N. 331 (1901). Both these cases fully support his contention and we agree with the learned Judges who decided those cases that the certificate not having been duly served under the provisions of sec. 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, there could be no execution and that the proceedings held under such certificate were bad. The fact that the sale proclamation was not served is also an important element to be taken into consideration. We, therefore, think that the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge should be set aside and the case sent back for trial of the other issues, namely, the 5th, 6th and 7th issues raised in the case. The costs will abide the result.