JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor against an order refusing to set aside an execution sale. The sale took place on the 20th March 1908 in execution of a mortgage decree. 71 items of property were sold and they were purchased by the decree-holders for Rs. 6,085. On the 21st April 1908, the judgment-debtor made an application to set aside the sale under secs. 244 and 311 of the Code of 1882. Her allegations mainly were that there had been serious irregularities in the publication and conduct of the sale, that such irregularities had caused substantial injury, and that consequently the sale could not be sustained. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed this application. He has held that the sale-proclamation was duly served. It is not necessary for us to consider that aspect of the case in the view we take of the other contentions of the Appellant before us. The attention of the learned Subordinate Judge was drawn to the circumstance that in the sale-proclamation many of the properties were undervalued. It was contended on behalf of the judgment-debtor that such undervaluation constituted material irregularity and that as, as a result of such undervaluation, the parties had been undersold, the sale ought; to be reversed. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the undervalue an irregularity; but as the properties not grossly undervalued, he (sic) that the undervaluation irregularity. He further evidence that there was that the properties (sic) On behalf of the conclusions of (sic) been assailc' (sic) namely,(sic) under (sic) action was that (sic) properties were (sic)could not hold that was a material character as to constitute material irregularity, and, secondly, that the judgment-debtor has suffered substantial injury inasmuch as by reason of the irregularity mentioned, the properties have been undersold. In our opinion, both these contentions are well-founded and must prevail. That the properties were undervalued in the sale-proclamation to a considerable extent cannot be disputed for a moment. The value of the 71 properties which were actually put up for sale was put down in the sale-proclamation at Rs. 4,210. They were purchased by the decree-holders for Rs. 6,085. In our opinion, both these contentions are well-founded and must prevail. That the properties were undervalued in the sale-proclamation to a considerable extent cannot be disputed for a moment. The value of the 71 properties which were actually put up for sale was put down in the sale-proclamation at Rs. 4,210. They were purchased by the decree-holders for Rs. 6,085. Therefore if the final estimate of the value of the properties as made by the decree-holders be accepted as correct, there can be no question that the estimate as made for the purpose of the sale-proclamation was considerably lower than their proper value. The position, however, becomes clearer if we examine some of the items of the properties sold. The decree-holders valued the item No. 1 at Rs. 400; but it was purchased by them at the sale for Rs. 800. The item No. 12 was valued at Rs. 25 but was purchased by them for Rs. 170. "The item No. 20 was valued at Rs. 50, but. was purchased by the decree-holders (sic) Rs. 280. The item No. 25 was valued 30 but was purchased for Rs. 430. (sic) inifest from these instances that (sic) inserted in the sale-proclaim (sic) ave been fixed with gross (sic)"he undervaluation was also (sic) ate because the decree the properties at the (sic)iderably higher sums (sic)by them in the (sic)proper value. It for A (sic) learned Vakil at Rs. (sic)es not con is mat (sic) o support the value (sic) tion must carelessness (sic) of this view reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Moulvi Abdul Kashem v. Benode Lal Dhone 12 C. W. N. 757 (1907). It is to be remarked, however, that the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Sadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar I. L R. 20 All. 412: s. c. 2 C W N. 650 (1898). Their Lordships pointed out in that case that the misstatement of value in the sale-proclamation was something more grave than an ordinary irregularity of procedure. In the case before us, this misstatement was made deliberately as well as gratuitously. In view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case just mentioned, we must hold that there was material irregularity in connection with the sale-proclamation in the case before us. In the case before us, this misstatement was made deliberately as well as gratuitously. In view of the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case just mentioned, we must hold that there was material irregularity in connection with the sale-proclamation in the case before us. It does not follow, however, that merely because the properties have been undervalued that the judgment-debtor is entitled to relief, because if the properties have been sold for their proper value, the judgment-debtor has no grievance. We must therefore turn to the second ground taken before us, namely, the question of the value of the properties which have been sold. [Upon a consideration of the evidence their Lordships then found that the properties had been sold below their proper value, and concluded as follows :-] 2. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed, the order of the Court below reversed, and the sale set aside. But the decree-holder will be at liberty to proceed to sell the properties again. It has been suggested by the learned Vakil for the Respondents that his clients will now be placed in a position of great disadvantage, because even upon a re-sale, the judgment-debtor may take objection on the ground of irregularity. It is manifest, however, that the decree-holders can amply protect themselves if they are careful. If they state the value of the properties after proper enquiry and not recklessly as they have done in the present instance, and if they take care to have the sale-proclamation served upon the properties which they wish to sell, they will be amply protected and if after these precautions the properties are undersold, there will not be any ground for setting aside the sale under sec. 311, C. P. C. The Appellant is entitled to her costs in this Court. We assess the hearing fee in this Court at three gold mohurs.