JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - The main question for decision in this appeal is whether a certain sale held by the certificate officer of Serajgange in execution of a certificate was a nullity. The certificate was filed in order to realise costs, in connection with settlement operations, from the Plaintiff and his co-sharers. As no payment was made, the revenue-paying estate was put up to sale and purchased by Defendant No. 1. The contention of the Appellant that the sale is a nullity has been overruled by both the Courts below. In support of the appeal, Mr. Choudhury has raised a point which was not taken in either of the Courts below. His contention is that the terms of sec. 15 of the Public Demands Recovery Act were not complied with That section provides that the sale of a revenue-paying estate may be held by the certificate officer exercising jurisdiction in the District to the revenue roll of which the estate or share appertains or by the certificate officer exercising jurisdiction in the District in which such estate or share is situated. It is not disputed that this particular estate appertains to the revenue roll of the District of Pabna. 2. Mr. Choudhury's argument is that the real meaning of this section is that the certificate officer must himself do everything in connection with the sale and wield the hammer. I have no -hesitation in overruling this argument. There is nothing to suggest that the certificate officer is not allowed to have the work carried out by his Nazir or other officers. In the present case, it appears that an attempt by the Nazir to sell the property at the Sub-Divisional head-quarters was unsuccessful. The certificate officer, therefore, directed a reliable peon to go to the Mofussil. While there, the peon obtained a bid from Respondent No. 1. The bid, however, was accepted not by the peon but by the certificate officer himself. There is no doubt, therefore, that the sale was actually held by the certificate officer. 3. The point on which reliance was placed in the Courts below was that the bid was obtained by the peon in the Mofussil. There is nothing either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder which forbids it. There is no doubt, therefore, that the sale was actually held by the certificate officer. 3. The point on which reliance was placed in the Courts below was that the bid was obtained by the peon in the Mofussil. There is nothing either in the Act or in the Rules made thereunder which forbids it. Under certain instructions given by the Board the sale of estates should be held in the District or Sub-Divisional headquarters: whereas failure to carry out the provisions of the Rules would only amount to an irregularity, disobedience of the instructions is not even that. 4. In the alternative, the Appellant prayed that the Respondent No. 1 might be directed to convey to him his original share in the property. In view of the finding that Defendant No. 1 purchased the property with his own money and for his own benefit no such order can be made. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with one set of costs to Respondent No. 1 and one set of costs to Respondent No. 5.