Short Note : 1. The short facts are that Ramcharanlal had a decree against Ganpatrao and he put that in execution in execution of that decree, he attached a house belonging to Ganpat Rao. The proclamation for sale under Order 21 rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued by the executing Court. To this proclamation, the judgment-debtor raised certain objections. The objections were that the map attached with this proclamation does not disclose the length and bredth, neither the municipal number of the house. The second objection is that columns 3, 4 and 5 are not filled in at all they are blank. Col. No.3 refer to the encumbrance on the house by the Government. Col. No. 4 refers to any private encumbrance and the Col. No.5 refers to the market price of the property to be sold and the interest in the property of the judgment-debtor. Held: I saw the proclamation and the objections raised by the judgment debtor are quite correct. When these objections were before the trial Court, the trial Court did not decide them, but only has mentioned that as the auction is to take place again, therefore, there is no need to decide them. Against this order there was an appeal. The appellate Court has said that these objections referred to Order 21 rule 58 CPC and, therefore, they need not be decided. How the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the objections are under Order 21 rule 58 CPC is not clear from the order itself at all. In fact, there are no objections under Order 21 rule 58 CPC in the file. It seems that in the application, the name mentioned is Ganesh Narayan Kalekar and in the execution proceedings, the name mentioned is Ganpat Rao Narayan Kalekar. Therefore, the appellate Court though that these two persons are different persons and, therefore, objections filed by Ganesh Narayan Kalekar are in fact objections flied under Order 21 rule 58 CPC, but that is not correct. The application mentions that this Ganesh Narayan Kalekar is the judgment-debtor, therefore the objections were filed by the judgment-debtor himself. Therefore, orders passed by both the lower Courts are not correct and they have to be set aside. As such, I set aside the orders of the Courts below. Appeal allowed.