JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This Rule has been obtained by one of the judgment-debtors who filed an application under sec. 174 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. He filed it within time and no question of limitation arises. Apart from the usual allegation that the sale proclamation was suppressed, the Petitioner made a case that 119 concise statement was issued on him or any of the judgment-debtors. The learned Munsif found that this was established and set aside the sale. That decision has been reversed by the learned Judge. 2. There is no evidence whatever to prove the issue of the concise statement. On the 10th of July, 1941, an order was recorded directing it to issue. No presumption can be drawn that the ordinary course of business was followed, because in this particular case it has not been followed. The learned Judge said that there was a similar mistake in connection with the sale proclamation. But the return of the sale proclamation shows that it was issued. In the case of the concise statement, there is no return from the Post Office. The learned Judge cannot possibly argue from that that, because some other documents were returned, this document was also returned. Mr. Rakshit suggested that this return was lost in the office. All I can say about that is that there is no presumption that the documents were lost in the office. The plain fact of the matter is that there is no evidence to prove the issue of the concise statement and there are no materials upon which the finding of the learned Munsif on this point could he reversed. 3. It is not very clear whether the learned Judge thought that the failure to issue this statement was a material irregularity or not. Mr. Rakshit is willing to interpret the judgment to mean that he did think so. He then said that in any event the irregularity had not caused any injury to the Petitioner. 4. The way the learned Judge dealt with this part of the case was to say that it was all the fault of the Petitioner. He ought to have paid the rent. He therefore must have expected that a decree would be passed and he must have also expected that the decree would be executed, etc. His case is that he himself was in Rangoon while all this was going on. He ought to have paid the rent. He therefore must have expected that a decree would be passed and he must have also expected that the decree would be executed, etc. His case is that he himself was in Rangoon while all this was going on. Be that as it may, a consideration of this kind is entirely beside the point. The result of the irregularity was that the Petitioner was prevented from paying the amount into Court in order to avert the sale, just as he has done immediately afterwards as soon as he came to know of it. This irregularity is the direct cause of his property being sold for an inadequate sum. 5. The Rule is accordingly made absolute, the Order of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Munsif restored. As the decree-holders have got their money, they are not opposing the Rule and I make no order for costs.