Short Note : 1. It was urged by the applicant that the auction sale was a nullity because there was no notice to the judgment-debtor when a fresh proclamation of sale was issued. Held: It is not disputed that before the first proclamation of sale was drawn up, a notice was issued to the judgment-debtor and he appeared before the executing Court and preferred objections. Opportunity was given to him to adduce evidence, but he failed to do so. Thereafter the proclamation of sale was drawn up. Subsequently when the sale was adjourned and the sale proclamation was again drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, rule 69 CPC and the proclamation so drawn up was in conformity with the requirements of Order 21, rule 66 CPC by mentioning the decree-holder's estimate of the approximate sale price. The applicant having notice of the execution proceedings did not appear before the executing Court and allowed the sale to proceed. In these circumstances, a fresh notice to the applicant was not necessary before issuing a fresh proclamation. Radhabai-Ghubhaji v. Kondba Shioram, ILR 1961 Bom. 588, relied on. Narayan Purushottam v. Ramchandra Mudgalji, 35 MPLC 112=AIR 1948 Nag. 177 distinguished, Revision dismissed.