JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiffs-Appellants to set aside the sale of a putni tenure held under Reg. VIII of 1819. Out of 10 original Plaintiffs in the suit, 7 have withdrawn prior to the appeal, and of the remaining three, one has died and an application has been made to substitute his heirs as co-Plaintiffs. 2. The grounds on which the Plaintiffs claim to have the sale set aside are set out in para. 4 of the plaint. It is stated that before the auction-sale no application or notice was stuck up in the Collector's office in accordance with the - provisions of sec 2 of Reg. VIII of 1899, no notice or proclamation was served at the mal kutchery of the landlord in accordance with the provision of the Regulation and that no receipt as regards the service of notice or proclamation was obtained from the Plaintiffs or their co-sharers and it was alleged that the sale had been fraudulently brought about and therefore was totally invalid and could not stand good. 3. Before the lower Courts an attempt was made to prove not that no notice or proclamation was served but that it was not served in accordance with the strict provisions of the Regulation. Both Courts held that the notices had been served though the Distirct Judge expressed an opinion that if the point had been raised as to whether the notice had been properly published in accordance with the terms of the Regulation, he might have some doubt as to whether the contents of the notice were in strict compliance with the law. 4. The point was also raised before the lower Courts that the notices were not properly served as they should have been kept on the Collector's Notice Board day and night whereas in fact they were only kept on the Board during office hours and at the end of office hours were taken inside. The District Judge considered that this irregularity was a trivial one and did not deserve any serious consideration. Both Courts have held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the processes required by law were not served or that the sale was brought about by fraud and dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. 5. The District Judge considered that this irregularity was a trivial one and did not deserve any serious consideration. Both Courts have held that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the processes required by law were not served or that the sale was brought about by fraud and dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. 5. The Plaintiff has appealed to this Court and in support of his appeal one principal point has been pressed. That point has been this that the notices which were stuck up in the Collector's office were only kept on the Office Board outside the Court from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M, and were not put up at all on Sundays, therefore there was an irregularity and a failure to comply strictly with the terms of the Regulation which would entitle the Plaintiff to have the sale set aside. In support of this contention, the judgment of this Court in Bejoy Chand Mahatap v. Atulya Charan Bose I. L. R. 32 Cal. 953 (1905) is relied on. At the close of his judgment delivered in that case, the learned Chief Justice says:-" Further, the evidence in the case shows that the petition and the notices were stuck up every day at 10 A.M. and taken down at 5 P.M. and that they were not stuck up at all on Sundays. There is nothing in the Regulation to justify this procedure. On the contrary sec. 10 would seem to imply that the notice is to remain stuck up until it should "be taken down at the time of the sale." It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that in this passage the law is strictly laid down and that it is sufficient authority for supporting the contention which is advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff in this case. 6. The head-note to the report is, we may observe, misleading, as it transposes the order of the remarks made by the learned Chief Justice and suggested that it is laid down as a definite finding that the procedure was not justified by the Regulation. That is not the view we take of that passage. The decision of that case turned on other irregularities which were held by the learned Chief Justice to be in contravention of the terms of the Regulation and to afford sufficient grounds for setting aside a sale. That is not the view we take of that passage. The decision of that case turned on other irregularities which were held by the learned Chief Justice to be in contravention of the terms of the Regulation and to afford sufficient grounds for setting aside a sale. The passage at the end of the judgment to which we have referred does not amount to a distinct finding of any irregularity in consequence of which the sale was set aside; but it is clearly an expression of opinion by way of obiter dictum as to what might possibly be the effect of the failure to keep the notice stuck up on the Collector's Notice Board after office hours. We do not think therefore that we should take that expression of opinion as binding on, ourselves in this, case and we think that the procedure which was followed, namely, sticking out these notices during office hours was a sufficient compliance with the terms of the Regulation. 7. It is to be observed that if these notices were left on the Office Board at all hours, they would be at the mercy of the weather and that if we were to hold that the terms of the Regulation must be so strictly complied with as suggested by the learned pleader in this case, we should have to hold that the compliance with the terms of the Regulation must in every case depend not on the conduct of the parties but on the condition of the weather. We may also observe that there would be no use in leaving notices at night on out of office hours at places to which the public would not have access. This might occur, and in fact occurs, in many Court buildings. 8. We consider in this case that there has been a sufficient compliance with the terms of the Regulation and we agree with the lower Courts that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any such irregularity in the sale as would justify the Courts in setting it aside. We therefore affirm the judgments of the lower Courts and dismiss the appeal with costs. There are two sets of Defendants in this case, namely, the Maharaja landlord and the purchaser. They both had to attend to defend the appeal and each of them is entitled to separate costs from the Plaintiff.