JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. [November 9, 1937.] -Proceedings in this case started under the Regulation of Sales Act on the 6th March, 1936. The 27th July, 1936, was fixed for a consideration of the valuation u/s 3(3). Notice was served on the judgment-debtor by affixation and the usual story was submitted that he had evaded personal service. 2. The judgment-debtor was absent on the 27th, but on the 30th June, he applied to the Civil Court under the Agriculturists' Relief Act for fixing installments etc. 2. Orders transferring his property to the decree-holder were passed on the 5th October, 1936, so that when eventually on the 19th November, the Civil Court amended the decree, the judgment-debtor was faced with a fait accompli in the shape of the transfer of his property and there was no decree which could be amended. 3. The judgment-debtor then applied for the cancellation of the sale deeds and the Sales Officer went into the case with some care. He "came to a definite finding that there had been no proper service and also realized that if the judgment-debtor had known of the proceedings, he would have had no difficulty in getting the Civil Court to order a stay of proceedings in the case in the revenue Court. But because the property was transferred for a good deal more than the valuation, the Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that there was no justification for recommending the case to the Board for interference in revision. 4. The Assistant Collector referred correctly to the ruling of the Board in Ruqaiya Begam v. Shyam Bihari Lall, 1936 RD 564 in which the Board held that if no proper notice is served on the judgment-debtor u/s 3(3), the subsequent proceedings will be null and void and I do not myself understand why he could not then proceed to recommend the Board to act in revision. It may be that he felt, as has been argued before me, that para. 997 of the Revenue Manual makes it essential that the judgment-debtor must prove that loss has accrued to him as a result of the material irregularity, on the ground of which he seeks to have the sale set aside. But the proviso to para. 997 applies only to the Collector and there is no such proviso to para. 1011 A which gives the Board powers of revision. 5. But the proviso to para. 997 applies only to the Collector and there is no such proviso to para. 1011 A which gives the Board powers of revision. 5. I would follow the ruling already quoted in Ruqaiya Begam v. Shyam Bihari Lall, 1936 RD 564 set aside the orders transferring the property of the judgment-debtor and direct the Collector, if necessary, to give the judgment-debtor another opportunity of contesting the valuation u/s 3(3). The applicant should get his costs and Rs. 10 pleader's fee. Darling SM [November 11, 1937] 6. I agree.