JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This civil revision by the judgment debtor arises from an order passed by the learned Munsif, Titilagarh, rejecting his application tiled u/s 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC for setting aside the sale. 2. The opposite party levied execution of a decree for realisation of a sum of Rs. 2602/-. On 30-7-1981 warrant of attachment was issued. On 30-4-1982, the Petitioner filed objecting stating that the land was Ac. 0.68 in extent in mouza Kantabanjhi and there was a house on it. Accordingly the property had been undervalued, by omitting to mention the existence of a house on land, the decree-holder has sought to play fraud on the Court. That objection was dismissed for default on 2-7-1982. On 7-9-1982, the decree-holder filed an affidavit stating that the valuation of the property would be Rs. 2602/-. The valuation was, however, resettled at Rs. 3000/- and proclamation was issued for sale. On 16-12-1982 to which the matter was posted for sale, the Petitioner filed an application u/s 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC challenging the valuation and steps taken for the sale omitting the existence of the house. The sale was adjourned to 17-12-1982 when the decree-holder himself purchased the property. The Petitioner filed the application for setting aside the attachment and the sale on the ground that having regard to the objection filed on 26-11-1982, no sale could have taken place on 17-12-1982 without disposal of the petition and secondly, having regard to the materials before the Court, valuation stated in the proclamation was grossly low and fraud was played on the Court by withholding the, fact of existence of a house on the land from its notice. Evidence was led on behalf of the Petitioner in proof of the fact that there was a double storeyed building on the land having four rooms and the value of the proparty would be valued at Rs. 50,000/-. Learned Munsif rejected the application holding that earlier objection of the Petitioner had been dismissed for default having regard to the objection taken, proclamation was issued taking into account the existence of a building. 3. Mr. 50,000/-. Learned Munsif rejected the application holding that earlier objection of the Petitioner had been dismissed for default having regard to the objection taken, proclamation was issued taking into account the existence of a building. 3. Mr. P.K. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has raised three contentions before me firstly, in view of the pendency of the objection before the executing Court, no further proceedigs could have been taken in the matter of sale of the property without disposing of the said objection. Further proceedings, therefore, stood vitiated though eventually the objection was disposed of by the impugned order. The second ground of attack is that having regard to the material before the Court, the executing Court should have directed that the existence of the house should be mentioned in the proclamation and should have caused an enquiry to be made to ascertain the approximate valuation thereof and thirdly, he submitted that the sale was liable to be set aside inasmuch as the decree holder had violated the mandatory requirement of Order 21, Rule 72 by not obtaining permission prior to his purchase. 4. Each of the contentions has force, though the last contention was not raised before the executing Court. First contention: It has been held by this Court in Sadananda Das Mohapatra v. Natabar Swain and Ors. Civil Revision Nos. 253 and 282 of 1976, decided on 18-8-1977 as follows: The settled position of law is that whenever a claim is made if it is not on the face of it a delayed one and is not frivolous, the same has to be disposed of on merit before the attached property is put to sale.... In Raja Dutt Prasad Singh Vs. Sri Narain, a Division Bench observed: Where the property of the judgment-debtors is allowed to go to sale while an objection to the amount stated in the sale proclamation was on the file of the executing Court and undisposed of, the appellate Court will not affirm the irregular procedure if a plea expressly challenging it be taken before it. There cannot be a second opinion that sale of the property has drastic consequences and an objection of the judgment debtor has vital importance so far as he is concerned. The judgment-debtor had filed an application on 26-11-1982. There cannot be a second opinion that sale of the property has drastic consequences and an objection of the judgment debtor has vital importance so far as he is concerned. The judgment-debtor had filed an application on 26-11-1982. It was not open to the executing Court to hold the sale of the property without disposing of the objection. There was no meaning in disposing the application after the sale. The proceeding stood, therefore, vitiated from that stage. 5. Second Contention: In Gajadhar Prasad and Others Vs. Babu Bhakta Ratan and Others it has been said: In the case before us, the execution Court had practically accepted, as its own valuation, without indicating reasonable grounds for this preference, whatever the decree-holders had asserted about the value of the property. It did not bother to seriously even consider the objections of the judgment-debtors. We think that the duty to consider what particulars should be inserted in the sale proclamation and how the sale ought to be conducted should be performed judicially and reasonably. If the execution Court does not, as it did not in the case before us apply its mind or give any consideration whatsoever to the objections of the judgment debtor, we think, a material irregularity would be committed by the execution Court. It is not necessary for the execution Court to order the insertion of a judicially passed order in the sale proclamation itself, but, it should pass an order showing that it applied its mind to the need for determining all the essential particulars, which would reasonably be looked for by a purchaser, and which should be inserted in the sale proclamation. The order should show that it considered the objections if any, of the decree-holders or the judgment-debtors, as the case may be. It should not merely accept unhesitatingly the ipse dixit of one side.... The order should show that it considered the objections if any, of the decree-holders or the judgment-debtors, as the case may be. It should not merely accept unhesitatingly the ipse dixit of one side.... In AIR 1945 67 (Privy Council) low valuation of the property to be sold in the sale proclamation was based upon a misstatement by the decree-holder as to the amount due under a prior encumbrance for want of knowledge of the true position and the sale took place at a serious under-value on account of the failure on the part of the Court and the decree-holder to carry out their obligations under Rule 66 to ascertain the true value of the property by finding out the correct amount due under the prior encumbrance. It was held: Order 21, Rule 60 imposes upon the Court the duty of causing a proclamation of the intended sale to be made and requires that such proclamation must specify, as fairly and accurately as possible, amongst other things, any encumbrance to which the property is liable. In most cases no doubt the Court has no means of checking the information sopplied by the parties but the Court ought, as far as practicable, to bring its mind to bear upon the contents of the proclamation; and where material is readily available to check the information supplied by the parties, the Court ought to avail itself of such material. The importance that is attached to the aforesaid requirement would be evident from the provision contained in Sub-rule (4) of Order 21, Rule 66 which reads as under: (4) For the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation, the. Court may summon any person whom it thinks necessary to summon and may examine him in respect to any such matters and require him to produce any document in his possession or power relating thereto. The Court ought not to, it is mandatory by the Legislature, act as a mere unconcerned Onlooker. It can take even suo motu action. And the Privy Council observed: ...The power conferred upon the Court by Rule 66(4) for summoning a witness for the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation shows that the Court is not intended to act blindly on informations supplied by the parties.... It can take even suo motu action. And the Privy Council observed: ...The power conferred upon the Court by Rule 66(4) for summoning a witness for the purpose of ascertaining the matters to be specified in the proclamation shows that the Court is not intended to act blindly on informations supplied by the parties.... Sub-rule (3) of Rule 66 provides that every application for an order for sale shall be accompanied by a statement signed and verified in the manner prescribed in Sub-rule (2) by the person making the verification, the matters required by Sub-rule (2) to be specified in the proclamation. Sub-rule (2) requires that a proclamation shall specify as fairly and as accurately as possible: (a) the property to be sold etc. .... (e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property. 6. The omission of existence of the house on the land contravened both Clauses (a) and (e). Description of the property omitting the house was not a fair and accurate description of the property and existence of the house was a matter which should have been considered material by the Court in order to judge the nature and value of the property. Hence, by the omission to mention the house in the proclamation, the decree-holder played a fraud on the Court and the Court failed in discharging the obligation cast on it by Rule 66 and acted in a casual manner in raising the valuation from Rs. 2602/-, to Rs. 3000/-. Where the matter was within the knowledge of the judgment-debtor or could be ascertained by him but was omitted from the proclamation though required to be stated, the default of the judgment-debtor would not amount to waiver. In Marudanayagam's case (supra), it has been observed: If the decree-holder knew the true value of the property but deliberately under-valued it in the sale proclamation and himself purchased the property at what he knew was too low a figure based on an upset price accepted by the Court owing to his own initial misrepresentation and subsequent suppression of material facts, his conduct would amount to fraud on the Court and he would not be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud whatever the conduct of the judgment-debtor might have been. 7. 7. Third contention: Order 21, Rule 72(1) reads as under: No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall without the express permission of the Court, bid for or purchase the property. The provision is mandatory. Leave of the Court is a condition precedent to the decree-holder bidding for the purchase of the property. The consequences of the purchase without permission of the Court is provided in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 72 which authorises the Court, if it thinks fit, on application by the judgment-debtor or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale, to set aside the same. The provisions in Sub-rule (3) are different from the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC for setting aside a sale. The applicant need not establish that he had sustained any substantial injury while moving the Court to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 72(3). The attack on this ground cannot be repelled. As admittedly, the decree-holder did not obtained prior permission before his purchase, the sale was liable to be set aside on the application of the judgment-debtor. The application filed by the Petitioner though labelled as one u/s 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having regard to the facts and circumstances, is treated as one under Order 21, Rule 72(3) of the Code. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside as well as the sale held on 17-12-1982 in favour of opposite party No. 1 and the revision is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed