Short Note : The non-applicant No.2 Motilal since dead in execution of his decree against the applicants got their Khander attached and sold in auction sale. The applicants applied to set aside the sale on the grounds that for want of propel sale proclamation people could not compete in offering their bids, and the auction was knocked down only for the bid of Rs. 600 when in a previous execution a bid of Rs. 1,150 was offered. It was also alleged that the auction purchaser did not deposit the 3/4th amount of the auction price within time. The auction purchaser non-applicant No.1 Mangilal as well as the decree holder resisted the applicant. The executing Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application. The applicants went in appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Shajapur, but it was also dismissed. Hence this revision. Held: The lower Courts have held that the sale was knocked down on 29-9-66 and the 3/4th amount of auction sale was to be deposited on 14-10-66 but from 14th to 16th October, 1966 there were general holidays and then on the 17th October, 1966 the balance was deposited. It was, therefore, held that the auction purchaser did not commit any default in depositing the balance of sale consideration. The Courts below have also held that there was no irrigularity in the proclamation of sale. The lower Court was also of the view that the sale could not be set aside simply because the sale was knocked down at a low price. The contention of the applicant that the decree-holder wrongly gave low valuation of the Khander at the time of sale proclamation was repelled by the lower Court that such an objection ought to have been taken by the applicants before the auction sale, and rightly so. 2. It is thus clear that the lower Court did not commit any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order in the appeal and this is no ground to make any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.