Judgment.- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, dated 22nd April, 1981, in E.A. No. 855 of 1980 setting aside the execution sale held on 25th February, 1980. 2. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 444 of 1979 for the sale of the immovable property already attached before judgment on 9th January, 1975, in I. A. No. 58 of 1975 under Order 21, rule 66 of he Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the execution petition, the decree-holder had filed the sale papers and they were checked and found correct. Thereafter sale notice under Order 21, rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, was ordered. The initial notice was not served on the judgement-debtor and substituted service was ordered. After substituted service of the sale notice was effected the judgment-debtor entered appearance through advocate and filed counter. In the counter filed, the judgment-debtor claimed benefits of an agriculturist under Act XIII of 1980 and did not specifically dispute the value of the property given by the decree-holder in the sale papers. The claim of the judgment-debtor was rejected and the execution petition was posted for payment of the decree amount to 21st January, 1980. Front 21st January, 1980 the execution petition was adjourned to 25th January, 1980, as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 25th January, 1980, the judgment-debtor was absent and the advocate failed to turn up. Thereupon, the learned District Munsif has passed the following orders: “……Hence no F.N. is necessary Today J.D. called absent. At request proclaim and sell on 25th February, 1980, F. Hg. 27th February, 1980.” The sale was held on 25th February, 1980, and confirmed on 29th April, 1980. Subsequently the judgment-debtor has filed E, A. No. 855 of 1980 under sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Act XIII of 1980, on 19th June, 1980. 3. The learned District Munsif has allowed the execution application and set aside the sale on the ground that the property worth more than Rs. 7,500 was sold for a nominal amount of Rs. 2,510 and that the defect in the settlement of proclamation is materially irregular in the Court not fixing up the upset price and on the ground that if such an upset price had been fixed by the Court, the property would not have been sold for such a low price in this case. 2,510 and that the defect in the settlement of proclamation is materially irregular in the Court not fixing up the upset price and on the ground that if such an upset price had been fixed by the Court, the property would not have been sold for such a low price in this case. The learned District Munsif has found that the judgment-debtor is not entitled to the benefits of Act XIII of 1980 and he was of the opinion that the judicial decisions relied on by the decree-bolder purchaser would not apply to the facts of the case, and that the judgment-debtor was entitled to file the petition to set aside the execution sale under sections 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. The short point for consideration is, whether the petition to set aside the sale filed under sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sustainable? 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the failure of the Court in not settling the proclamation of sale under Order 21 , rule 66 , Civil Procedure Code, is a proceeding in the course of the proclamation of sale, and that if there was any illegality or material irregularity in the settlement of the proclamation, the correct provision for filing an application to set aside the sale is Order 21 , rule 90 , Civil Procedure Code, but not sections 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel fee the respondent has cited the decisions reported in Sankara Narayana v. Sankara Iyer1. Appu v. Aehuta Menon2 and Natarajan v. Chandmull Amarchand3; in support of the argument that the execution Court had failed to serve the notice contemplated under Order 21 , rule 66 , Civil Procedure Code, before the proclamation proceedings to be taken by the executing Court and that the sale being a void one, can be set aside by means of an application under sections 47 and 151 , Civil Procedure Code. When the attention of the learned counsel for the respondent herein was drawn to the fact that in those rulings the notice contemplated under Order 21 , rule 66 had not been taken to the judgment-debtor, whereas in the present execution petition, which was filed within two years after the passing of the decree, sale notice contemplated under Order 21 , rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, was taken after verifying the correctness of the sale papers filed by the decree-holder, the learned counsel immediately withdrew his reliance upon the above three judicial decisions. 6. Therefore, the respondent had to substantiate whether he can take protection under sections 47 and 151 for setting aside the sale, which was held after service of notice to him instead of filing the sale setting-aside petition under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the respondent could not cite any direct decision on that point; 7. On the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel has cited several judicial decisions both of the Supreme Court and of this Court and other High Courts to the effect that once sale notice has been taken under Order 21, rule 66, Civil Procedure Code and sale is ordered, the person who seeks to set aside the sale has no other option but to invoke Order 21, rule 90 , Civil Procedure Code, but not sections 47 and;151. In Dhirendranatha Goral v. Sudhir Chandra Ghosh1, it was held by the Supreme Court that the non-compliance of the provisions of section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act is a step in the proclamation proceedings and not a proceeding before the proclamation proceedings are taken and hence an application to set aside a sale for non-compliance of the provisions of section 35 of the said Act can be founded only under Order 21, rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act provides that the intended sale of property in execution of a decree passed in respect of a loan shall specify only so much of the property of the judgment-debtor as the Court considers to be saleable at a price sufficient to satisfy the decree, and the property as specified shall not be sold at a price, which is less than the price specified in such proclamation. 8. 8. In the above case dealt with by the Supreme Court, the judgment-debtor was served with notice under Order 21, rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but did not file any objection to the valuation, though he got the sale adjourned a number of times promising to pay the decretal amount, but failed to do so, and that thereafter two of the properties were sold in Court auction. Then, one of the judgment-debtors filed an application in the executing Court for setting aside the sale under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia on the ground that section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act was not complied with. The trial Court dismissed the application, and on appeal, the High Court held that though there had not been any substantial injury to the petitioner, the provisions of section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act were mandatory and therefore the infringement of the said provision would invalidate the sale. It is under these circumstances, it was held by the Supreme Court that the non-compliance of the provisions of section 35 of the Bengal Money Lenders Act with reference to the sale proclamation would attract only an application under Order 21, rule 90 Civil, Procedure Code, for the purpose of setting aside the sale. 9. In Satyanarayanamurthy v. Bhavanarayana2 the Full Bench of the High Court has held that the proclamation is not properly drawn up, it cannot be said that there is a proper publication, because it would be publication of an improper proclamation of sale, and that a violation of the provision of rule 66 (2), is only an irregularity in the publication or conduct of sale and hence an application under Order 21, rule 90 alone can be filed for setting aside such a sale. The following observations are found in paragraphs 21 and 22 at page 189: “The principle to be deduced from these authorities is that breaches of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to execution against immovable properties commencing from their attachment down to their sale should all be dealt with under Order 21, rule 90 , and not otherwise and that the order of confirmation under Order 21, rule 32, should give the final quietus to all objections which could be raised under Order 21 , rule 90. If this view be correct, then there can be no doubt that a violation of the provisions of rule 66 (2) is only an irregularity in the publication or conduct of sale”. It is under Order 21, rule 66 (2), proclamation has to be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and according to the Madras Amendment of rule 66 (2), the terms of proclamation shall be settled in court after notice to the decree-holder and judgment-debtor. It is conceded that the notice contemplated under Order 21, rule 66 (2) has been served on the judgment-debtor. It is crystal clear, therefore, that for setting aside the sale for non-compliance of any of the provisions contained in Order 21 , rule 66 (2) , the application to set aside the sale must be filed only under Order 21 , rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. 10. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court has adopted and expressed the same view in A.P.V. Rajendran v. S.A. Sundararajan1. In 93 Law Weekly case, the petition to set aside the sale mentioned inter alia on the ground that the upset price for Lot 1 had been improperly reduced and that the sale proclamation did not contain either the place or the date of auction, nor did it contain the quantum of tax payable on the property. With reference to the above said particular facts, the Full Bench has held that the irregularity and defects found by the trial Court will attract only Order 21 , rule 90 , Civil Procedure Code, as the defects and irregularities are in the preparation and settlement of the sale proclamation and not under section 47. The relevant observations are found in paragraph 21 at page 54. “We have to, therefore, held in this case that the irregularity and the defects found by the trial Court will attract only Order 21, rule 90 , Civil Procedure Code, as the defects and irregularity are in the preparation and settlement of the sale proclamation and not under section 47. As the sale in this case has been impeached only on grounds which attract Order 21, rule 90, the judgment-debtor cannot escape the period of limitation by framing his application as one under section 47”. 11. As the sale in this case has been impeached only on grounds which attract Order 21, rule 90, the judgment-debtor cannot escape the period of limitation by framing his application as one under section 47”. 11. In the present case also, we find that the application to set aside the sale has been filed under the cloak of sections 47 and 151 as well as Act XIII of 1980 beyond the period of limitation prescribed for an application under Order 21 , rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. Evidently, the petitioner has desperately mentioned as far as possible all the provisions of law that can be taken to his rescue, though such provisions will not help him. The Full Bench has also relied on Dhirendranatha Goral's case2, for the principle that, if the sale is sought is to be set aside on the ground of material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale within the meaning of Order 21 , rule 90 , then section 47 cannot come into play at all. In the face of the catena of judicial decisions in favour of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent herein is not able to cite any single direct judicial authority. 12. In fact, the learned District Munsif himself has observed in his Order in the beginning of paragraph 7 as follows:— “………Do, it is evidence that the suit property was sold at a very low price. Further in this case as per the amended rule 6 of order 21 no upset price was fixed by this court before ordering the sale. The property was sold to the price given by the decree-holder in the sale papers”. The judgment-debtor, who entered appearance through an advocate has filed a counter after receiving the sale notice under Order 21 , rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, and has not chosen to attack the value given by the decree-holder in the sale papers, though he has filed a counter invoking the benefits of an agriculturist, which was negatived. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment-debtor had no opportunity to mention his own valuation. In the absence of the valuation of the judgment-debtor, probably the executing Court did not fix any upset price and left the proclamation to he published at the valuation given by the decree-holder. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment-debtor had no opportunity to mention his own valuation. In the absence of the valuation of the judgment-debtor, probably the executing Court did not fix any upset price and left the proclamation to he published at the valuation given by the decree-holder. At the most, if the valuation given by the judgment-debtor in E. A. No. 855 of 1980 is taken as correct, the defect will amount only to an irregularity in the sale proclamation, but not a void sale proclamation. Even then, according to the judicial decisions discussed supra, the application will lie only under Order 21 , rule 90 , Civil Procedure Code and not under sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances, the revision petitioner is allowed with costs. The order passed by the trial Court setting aside the sale is set aside. E. A. No. 855 of 1980 stands dismissed. R.S ----- Petition allowed.