Judgment S.Roy, J. 1. The petitioners in this civil revision are the judgment-debtors. Initially a decree for Rs. 2,927.50 was passed in favour of opposite parties besides costs. In the appeal the decree was modified and a decree was passed for Rs. 1,927.50. 2. The opposite parties executed the decree passed by the trial court and in the application under Order XXI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the amount was shown Rs. 2927.50 in term of the trial court decree. The cost awarded was Rs. 440.70 and it has been paid. 3. Immovable property belonging to the petitioners was attached and was auction sold by the executing court on 16-4-1980. The auction sale was confirmed on 16-5-1980. The bidders were opposite parties and the sale was confirmed in their name. 4. The petitioners filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale and that was registered as Misc. Case No. 84 of 1980. The trial court allowed the application and set aside the sale. The opposite parties filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No 1 of 1984. Appellate court allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the trial court and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order XXI, Rule 90 on the ground that it was not maintainable. The order of appellate court has been challenged in the civil revision by the petitioners. 5. There was controversy between the parties as to whether in the sale proclamation the decretal amount to be recovered from the sale of the property was shown as Rs. 2,927.50 or Rs. 1,927.50. There was controversy again between the parties as to whether there was any proclamation of the intended sale as required under Order XXI, Rule 66. Further controversy between the parties was watcher the executing court had given permission to the opposite parties to bid in the auction. 6. From the perusal of the order of the executing court, which is rather a long order, it appears that column No. (g) of application for execution of decree in terms of Order XXL Rule 11(2) was not corrected according to the appellate court decree i.e. the. amount of Rs. 2,927.50 was not corrected to Rs. 1,927.50. 6. From the perusal of the order of the executing court, which is rather a long order, it appears that column No. (g) of application for execution of decree in terms of Order XXL Rule 11(2) was not corrected according to the appellate court decree i.e. the. amount of Rs. 2,927.50 was not corrected to Rs. 1,927.50. Order XXI, Rule 66(2)(d) provides that in the sale proclamation) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is to be ordered is to be stated. From the perusal of the order of the executing court it appears that with regard to this figure the amount was stated to be Rs. 2,927 50. 7. So far the last factual position is concerned, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is provision for set-off, i.e. the judgment-debtor was entitled to receive the sale proceeds which was in excess of the decree. It was urged that the balance amount i.e. the amount beyond Rs. 1,927.50 was set-off that was paid to the judgment-debtor. I have already noticed that Order XXI, Rule 66(2)(d) provides that in the sale proclamation the amount for which the sale is ordered is to be stated. In the sale proclamation, therefore, the amount which was required to be shown was Rs. 1,927.50. Question of set-off will arise only in such a case where in the sale proclamation the decretal dues are correctly mentioned and the property is sold in excess of that. The proclamation of intended sale, therefore, was not in accordance with the aforesaid rule. 8. Further Order XXI, Rule 66(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the sale proclamation shall be drawn after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor. From the persual of the order of the executing court it appears that no order had been passed by the executing court to issue the sale proclamation. It also appears that no order had been passed by the executing court although it was prayed by the opposite parties to allow them to take part in the bid. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that to settle the dispute with regard to the factual position it was necessary to see the records of the executing court. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that to settle the dispute with regard to the factual position it was necessary to see the records of the executing court. 9. The opposite parties have filed a counter-affidavit in this civil revision, but nowhere it is stated that the facts noticed by the executing court, as noticed by me above, were factually not correct. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties further submitted that this factual position has not been accepted by the appellate court as was evident from its order. From the perusal of the appellate court order it appears that the lower appellate court took notice of the fact that process for issuing sale proclamation had been filed by the decree-holders and thereafter it observed that the sale proclamation was issued by the executing court. It did not mention the date of the order-sheet of the executing court as to when the sale proclamation had been issued. Further the lower appellate court had noticed that the decree-holders had filed an application praying therein to allow them to take part in the auction and the same was said to have been allowed by the executing court on 15-4-1980. This is also factually not correct. This appears from the order of the executing court. 10. The facts which emerge from the above are that in the sale proclamation instead of Rs. 1,927.50 as decretal dues, Rs. 2,927.50 was shown, there was no order of executing court to issue the sale proclamation, there was no order of executing court allowing the decree-holders to take part in the bid. 11. Lower appellate court has held that the application under Order XXI, Rule 90 was not maintainable as it was barred by constructive res judicata for the reason that the petitioner did not file any objection after issuance of sale proclamation. I have already noticed that there was no order to issue sale proclamation, so there was to question of filing any objection. In view of this, Sub-rule (3) of Rule 90 of Order XXI, have no application to the facts of this case. It must be held the application filed by the petitioners was maintainable. 12. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed. The order of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. It must be held the application filed by the petitioners was maintainable. 12. In the result, this civil revision application is allowed. The order of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The executing court will proceed with the execution case in accordance with law.