Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (January 81, 1902), reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur (January 12, 1899), and dismissing the appellants suit with costs. The plaintiffs alleged that in execution of a money decree originally obtained against them by Saiyid Muhammad Khan certain specified properties were advertised for sale on February 20, 1897 ; that on February 11, 1897, the Court executing the decree ordered a postponement of sale, and in accordance therewith the execution case was struck off the file of the Collectors office at Basti, whither it had been sent for execution; that on February 19, 1897, an order ex parte was obtained by the decree-holder in the absence of the judgment debtors, setting aside the order of postponement, and for bringing the property to sale, which, accordingly, was sold for a low price on February 23, 1897, a " date other than the one fixed for sale when the intending purchasers had retired " ; and that the decree-holders were the purchasers under permission to bid obtained without the knowledge of the appellants. The sale was confirmed on May 22, 1897, and the prayer of the plaintiffs was to declare it incapable of enforcement. Previously to this suit an application was made to the Court to set aside the sale; Law Rep. 34 Ind. App. 37 ( 1906- 1907) Gajrajmati Teorain V. Saiyid Akbar Husain 128 and the High Court, in affirming the order of confirmation dated May 22, 1897, said " On the application of the plaintiffs in another suit, not the suit in which this decree was made, the Subordinate Judge ordered, on February 11, that the sale should be postponed, fixing no date. It was consequently a general and indefinite postponement that was made ex parte on the application of a person not a party to the execution proceedings. It was consequently a general and indefinite postponement that was made ex parte on the application of a person not a party to the execution proceedings. That was a most irregular order to make.” On February 19 the Subordinate Judge " committed another impropriety which was even worse, for he cancelled his order of the 11th and directed the sale to proceed without ordering the issue of a fresh proclamation or taking any precautions to see that the parties to the execution proceedings should not be damnified." They further said, “as to irregularity, the whole proceedings were irregular and likely to cause loss to the judgment debtors, although possibly not to the decree-holder who had got permission to purchase.” But they found that it was in fact without resulting loss. Thereupon this suit was brought. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, holding that " when the sale was postponed on February 11, 1897, and that order was cancelled at the instance of the decree-holder, and sale was ordered to take place, a fresh proclamation ought to have been issued under s. 290, Civil Procedure Code." He referred to Bakshi Nand Kishore v. Malak Chand (( 1885) I. L. R. 7 Allah. 289.) as an authority to the effect that an infringement of the rule laid down in that section is something more than a material irregularity, and he held that it vitiated the sale, and that the sale was bad in law, and should be declared inoperative. The High Court reversed this decree, holding that the omission to issue a fresh proclamation "is a matter concerning the publishing or conducting the sale within the meaning of s. 811"; and that no regular suit would lie. Cowell, for the appellants, submitted that, after the injunction issued restraining the sale and the order by the Collector striking the case off his file, there could be no valid sale under the original order without a fresh proclamation under s. 291 of the Code. The result of the order of the Civil Court was that the sale was adjourned for more than seven days, and no fresh pro clamation was made under s. 287 of the Code, and no proclamation at all was issued under the operative order to sell, which was made on February 19, and did not reach the Collectors hands until after the date originally fixed for the sale. Accordingly the sale as made, whether under the order of the 19th or the original order, was in either case unauthorized by the Code, and, therefore, inoperative and void. Reference was made to the Code of Civil Procedure, s. 289 ; Bakshi Nand Kishore v. Malak Chand (I. L.R. 7 Allah. 289.); Ganga Prasad v. Jaglal Rai (( 1889) I. L. R. 11 Allah. 333.) ; Mina Kumari Bibee v. Jagat Sattani Bibee. (( 1883) I. L. R. 10 Calc. 220.) De Gruyther, for the respondent Inayat Husain, contended that the suit was barred by ss. 244 and 312 of the Civil Procedure Code. The questions raised were proper to be raised before the Court executing the decree under s. 311. They had been so raised and had been disposed of by two Courts adversely to the appellants, there having been a concurrent finding of fact that there had been no resulting loss from the irregularity complained of. He cited Tassaduk Rasul Khan v. Ahmad Husain. (( 1893) L. R. 20 Ind. Ap. 176.) Cowell replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and dismissing with costs a regular suit brought for the purpose of annulling a sale in execution proceedings. Law Rep. 34 Ind. App. 37 ( 1906- 1907) Gajrajmati Teorain V. Saiyid Akbar Husain 129 The sale was held under a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur by the Collector of Basti. The sale proclamation was duly issued. The sale was fixed for February 20, 1897. It was held on the 23rd, but before the Collector had finished the sales listed for the 20th. It appears that an order was made ex parte on February 11, 1897, by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur staying the sale. On February 16 the Collector of Basti, in obedience to this order, struck the proceedings off the pending file. However, on the 22nd, in consequence of notice received from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, from which it appeared that the order staying the sale had been set aside, the case was then brought forward, as the Collector notes, "in continuation of the sale proceedings in. other cases." The sale was commenced, but adjourned till the following day. However, on the 22nd, in consequence of notice received from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, from which it appeared that the order staying the sale had been set aside, the case was then brought forward, as the Collector notes, "in continuation of the sale proceedings in. other cases." The sale was commenced, but adjourned till the following day. On the 23rd the decree-holders, who had leave to bid, purchased at the auction the interest of the judgment debtors, and the sale was concluded in their favour subject to confirmation by the Civil Court. On the application for confirmation the judgment debtors applied to have the sale annulled. The Subordinate Judge confirmed the sale, finding that, although there were irregularities in the conduct of the sale, the judgment debtors had not sustained any damage. On appeal the High Court at Allahabad confirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. Then the judgment debtors brought this suit. The order committing the sale to the Collector of Basti is not in evidence, nor does it appear clearly in what capacity the Collector sold, or on what grounds the order staying the sale was made, or on what grounds it was revoked, or whether any notice was ever given to the public that the sale had been stayed, and that the case was for a time struck off the pending file. It appears, however, to have been assumed in the present litigation, and their Lordships assume for the purpose of their judgment, that the case came within s. 291 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that when the stay of proceedings was removed a fresh proclamation ought to have been issued in compliance with the terms of that section. The Subordinate Judge held that, inasmuch as no fresh proclamation was issued, the sale was void, and therefore he pronounced a decree in favour of the judgment debtors. The Court of Appeal, assuming that a fresh proclamation ought to have been issued, held that the omission was an irregularity which had involved no loss to the debtor; that the only course open to the judgment debtors was to object, as they did, to the confirmation of the sale, and that it was not competent for them to impeach the sale by regular suit. Their Lordships are of opinion that the decision of the High G Court is perfectly right. Their Lordships are of opinion that the decision of the High G Court is perfectly right. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are, in their opinion, clear on the point. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.