ORDER G.H. Guttal, J. 1. This petition by the purchaser at the court auction in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 3 of 1978 impugns the validity of the order of the District Judge, Thalassery, in C. M, A. No. 34 of 1990 confirming the order of the Sub Judge, Thalassery in E. A. No, 48 of 1987 in E. P. No. 103 of 1986, whereby the latter allowed the Judgment debtor's application and set aside the sale under R.90 of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On 31st May, 1991 I allowed this petition in the absence of counsel for the judgment debtor. However, upon hearing the C. M. P. No. 3769 of 1991 by the judgment debtor, respondent No. 1 heroin, I set aside the order and restored this civil revision petition to file That is how this petition has come before me for hearing. 2. In this judgment the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 are referred to as the purchaser, the judgment debtor and the decree holder respectively. 3. The following facts may be taken to be undisputed. The Execution Application No. 48 of 1987 for setting aside the sale, made by the judgment debtor, was based on these grounds: - (a) Due to ulcer on his foot he could not instruct his advocate to oppose the execution and (b) he received no notice of the Execution proceedings under R.66 of O.21 of the Code. In his testimony in E. A 48 of 1987, he asserted the facts pleaded by him. But in the cross examination he admitted that he did not object to the report of the commissioner filed in the suit which set out the value of the property. 4. On 20-6-1990, the Sub Judge, Thalassery, allowed E. A. No. 48 of 1987 and set aside the sale. 5. The learned. District Judge dismissed the auction purchaser's C. M. A. No. 34 of 1990 on 1-1-1990, for these reasons: - The judgment debtor, was bedridden with ulcer and rheumatism from 31-12-1986. His property worth 2 lakhs was sold for a meagre price without allowing him to contest the case. 6. The notice under O.21 R.66 was served by affixing a copy on the house of the judgment - debtor. This was done on 3-12-1986. His property worth 2 lakhs was sold for a meagre price without allowing him to contest the case. 6. The notice under O.21 R.66 was served by affixing a copy on the house of the judgment - debtor. This was done on 3-12-1986. At the time of making the decree in 1978 commissioner was appointed. He valued the land at Rs. 34,000 = 00 and the house at Rs. 24,000 = 00. The total area is 20 cents. The judgment debtor did not file objections to the commissioner's report filed in the suit. The reserve price at the auction was fixed at Rs. 20, 000 = 00. The decree was for Rs. 6200 = 00. The purchaser bought the property for Rs. 21,000 = 00. 7. On the basis of the facts set out above, learned counsel for the petitioner urged these points: (a) Neither the execution application No. 48/87 nor the evidence of the judgment debtor brings out the facts necessary to justify an inference of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the auction sale which are basic requirements of sub-r.(1) of R.90 of O.21 of the Code. (b) Nor is there any averment in the E. A. No. 48 of 1986 or evidence, to prove that the irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale caused substantial injury to the judgment debtor which is the legal requirement of sub rule (2) of R.90 of the Code. 8. The first question is, whether the judgment debtor was served with a notice of the proposed proclamation of sale. Sub-r.(2) of R.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the proclamation of sale shall be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and the judgment debtor and shall state therein the particulars set out in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-r.(2) of R.66. Clause (e) of sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code applicable in Kerala State, requires that the proclamation shall state not only the value of the property as stated by the decree holder but also the value as stated by the judgment debtor. Clause (e) of sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code introduced by Notification in Kerala Gazette No. 23 dated 9-6-1959. Implicit in this provision is the right of the judgment debtor to assert his value of the property. Clause (e) of sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code introduced by Notification in Kerala Gazette No. 23 dated 9-6-1959. Implicit in this provision is the right of the judgment debtor to assert his value of the property. The record no doubt, reveals, that on 3rd December, 1986 the notice was served by affixing, accompanied by beat of drums. But certain dates and events which also appear from the record are significant. On the execution petition No 103 of 1986 filed on 14-8-1986, the Trial Court made an order on 16-8-1986 that notice be issued Nothing happened till 17th October, 1986 on which date, due to the decree holder's absence the proceedings for settlement of proclamation was adjourned to 18-11-1986. On the same day the draft proclamation was approved and the date of sale was fixed as 8.1.1987. The auction was held on the following day. Sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code requires that such proclamation shall be drawn up "after notice to the decree holder and the judgment debtor." Thus the judgment debtor has to be served with a notice the proclamation is draws up. The notice to the judgment debtor is not a matter of external form, for, as already stated he has a right to state his value of the property. The proclamation was drawn up and approved on 18-11-1986 whereas the evidence reveals service by affixing on 3rd December, 1986, These Facts clearly indicate that the proclamation of sale was drawn up and approved about 15 days before the notice was served on the judgment debtor. In my opinion therefore the notice required under R.66 of O.21 of the Code was not served on the judgment debtor. Consequently therefore the judgment debtor had no opportunity of participating in the settlement of proclamation. He was clearly denied the opportunity of stating his price of the land proposed to be sold. 9. The nest question is whether the judgment debtor has alleged material irregularity or fraud and the consequent injury. The judgment of the learned District Judge reveals that the Judgment Debtor urged gross inadequacy of the price as a ground for setting aside the sale. But learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the absence of specific pleading of irregularity in the publication and conduct of the sale and substantial injury. The judgment of the learned District Judge reveals that the Judgment Debtor urged gross inadequacy of the price as a ground for setting aside the sale. But learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the absence of specific pleading of irregularity in the publication and conduct of the sale and substantial injury. A judgment debtor who has been struggling to urge that the property worth 2 lakhs rupees was proclaimed as worth Rs. 20,000/- without notice to him, should be taken to Lave urged material irregularity and substantial injury. This should be seen against the background of the fact that the Court blindly accepted the value put by the Decree Holder although the Report of the Commissioner had valued the land and the house together at Rs, 54.000 = 00, The allegation of material irregularity and substantial Injury are implicit in the facts pleaded and the evidence led in this case Putti Kondala Rao v. Vallamatichili Sitaramma ( AIR 1976 SC 737 ). 10. The next point relates to material irregularity in the proclamation and sale of the property. The duty of the executing court in the proclamation and conduct of sale is an integral part of the whole proceedings. The failure to perform such duty may introduce material irregularity In the proclamation and conduct of sale. While the judgment debtor is required to prove material irregularity in the proclamation and conduct of sale and the resultant injury, the Court charged with the function of execution of the decree also has a duty to ensure that the property proclaimed fetches fair value and there is no distress sale. This duty is two fold. Firstly in every case it is the duty of the Court to satisfy "itself that having regard to the market value of the property the price offered is not unreasonable. Unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of judicial discretion. M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. others ( AIR 1974 SC 1331 ). It is the Court which conducts the sale and its duty to apply its mind to the material factors bearing on the reasonableness of the price offered, is part of the process of obtaining a proper price in the course of the sale. M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. others ( AIR 1974 SC 1331 ). It is the Court which conducts the sale and its duty to apply its mind to the material factors bearing on the reasonableness of the price offered, is part of the process of obtaining a proper price in the course of the sale. Therefore, failure to apply its mind to this aspect of the conduct of the sale may amount to material irregularity. (M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. and others ( AIR 1974 SC 1331 )) Secondly, the Court has a duty to ensure that property in excess of what is required to realise the amount necessary to satisfy the decree is not put to sale. Clause (a) of Sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code stipulates that the proclamation must set out "the properly to be sold or where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part." The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that where the amount specified in the proclamation of sale for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, can be realised by sale of certain items, the sale of further items should be stopped. Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma and Others ( AIR 1977 SC 1789 ). It is logical to infer that where large piece of property is proposed to be sold and its value exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the decree, the Court should endeavour to see whether a part of the property can be sold to satisfy the decree and save the rest of the property from sale. That is why the words "where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree" have been used in Clause (a) of Sub-r.(2) of R.66 of O.21 of the Code. The legislature did not stop here. It enjoins the court to draw up a proclamation to specify "such part of the property which would be sufficient to satisfy the decree". The words "such part" follow the words "where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree". Therefore it is only "such part" that should be proclaimed for sale as would, in the opinion of the Court, be sufficient to satisfy the decree. The words "such part" follow the words "where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree". Therefore it is only "such part" that should be proclaimed for sale as would, in the opinion of the Court, be sufficient to satisfy the decree. This necessarily means that the Court should pause, to understand the market value of the property and see how much of the property need to be sold. Takkaseela Pedda Subha Reddi v. Pujari Padmavathamma and Others ( AIR 1977 SC 1789 ). This duty of the Court to sell only such property or a portion thereof as is necessary to satisfy the decree has been characterised as a legislative mandate and the tendency in execution cases, to sell blindfold the entire property by auction deprecated. Ambati Narassayya v. M. Subba Rao ( AIR 1990 SC 119 ). Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao ( AIR 1990 SC 119 ). Sale held without considering whether a part of the property can satisfy the decree has been held to be "without jurisdiction". Ambati Narassayya v. M. Subha Rao ( AIR 1990 SC 119 ) 11. As I have already sat out earlier, the Supreme Court in the case of Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. and Others ( AIR 1974 SC 1331 has observed that failure of the court to perform its duty may amount to material irregularity. It follows therefore that in considering whether there has been material irregularity in the proclamation and conduct of sale one of the factors to be taken into account is whether the court has fulfilled the twin duty cast on it. A mechanical conduct of sale or its confirmation without considering whether the price is too low, implies both material irregularity and injury. M/s. Kayjay Industries (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Asnew Drums (P) Ltd. and Others ( AIR 1974 SC 1331 ). I am not oblivious to the fact that gross inadequacy of pries by itself is not sufficient to set aside the sale. The inadequacy must be caused by the material irregularity. Radhey Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh ( AIR 1971 SC 2337 ). 12. Now consider how some other judicial decisions have treated similar sales. Where property worth Rs. 10,000/- was sold for Rs. The inadequacy must be caused by the material irregularity. Radhey Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh ( AIR 1971 SC 2337 ). 12. Now consider how some other judicial decisions have treated similar sales. Where property worth Rs. 10,000/- was sold for Rs. 2,000 = 00, as in Ambati Narasayya, Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao ( AIR 1990 SC 119 ) or a building worth Rs.8 lakhs was sold for Rs.4,25,000.00 as in Hotel Natraj, M/s. Hotel Natraj and Others v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and Others (AIR 1989 Karnataka 90) the courts had no hesitation in setting aside the sales. In Sankara Narayanan Nair Sankara Narayanan Nair v. Paravoor Central Chitty Fund Ltd. ( 1962 KLT 623 ) 90 cents of Sand, valued by commissioner at Rs. 170 per cent was sold at Rs. 61 par cent, fetching Rs. 5505 = 00 against the judgment debtor's value of Rs. 30,000 = 00. The lesson of Sankara Narayanan Nair is that the injury to the judgment debtor from gross undervaluation is the result of material irregularity in fixing the upset price at a grossly low figure. Where sale takes place at gross undervalue by the failure of the court and the Decree holder to carry out their duty the sale should be set aside even if the conduct of the judgment debtor it dilatory (Marudhanayagam Pillai v. Manickavasakam Chettiar ( AIR 1945 PC 67 )). 13. In this case, the material irregularity is clear from these facts. (i) The judgment debtor who did not receive notice under R.66 of O.21 of the Code was prevented from stating his price. There was thus a breach of R.66 of O.21 of the Code. (ii) The report of the commissioner made at the time of making the decree in 1978 which is on the record, placed the price of the whole property at Rs. 54,000 = 00. In 1986 the price must have doubled. Yet the court sold it for Rs. 21000 = 00. (iii) The value put by the Decree holder was accepted without any effort to ascertain the market price of 20 cents of property. (iv) The proclamation of sale does not state the amount to be realised for satisfying the decree. (v) The proclamation does not specify the time and place of the sale. (vi) The reserve price was fixed at Rs. (iv) The proclamation of sale does not state the amount to be realised for satisfying the decree. (v) The proclamation does not specify the time and place of the sale. (vi) The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 20,000 = 00 whereas the price fixed in 1978 by the commissioner was Rs. 54,000 = 00. (vii) The court did not pause to consider whether the whole property need have been sold. In my opinion the executing court did not perform the duty cast on it. It mechanically accepted the decree holder's value. Why was the commissioner's report not taken into account to consider the value of the property? What effort was made to ascertain the correct market price? Why was the whole property sold? What effort was made to consider whether it was necessary to sell the whole property? Why was time and place of sale not proclaimed? None of these questions find any answer. Material irregularity is writ large on the proceedings. The injury to the judgment debtor is evident from the loss of valuable property. Had the proclamation been in conformity with law, had the judgment debtor been served with notice, had the market price been stated, this loss could be averted. These omissions furnish the causal connection between the material irregularity and the injury caused to the judgment debtor. There is no doubt that the sale in question suffers from gross material irregularity. The loss of the valuable property is the direct consequence of the material irregularity in the proclamation and conduct of sale. 14. Two judicial decisions need to be mentioned. In K. Krishnaswami Gounder K. Krishnaswami Gounder v. Palani Gounder ( AIR 1975 Mad. 197 ) the Court held that it was not part of court's duty to make a research into the prior proceedings in order to find out if the judgment debtor had stated the value of the property. This question does not arise in this case. Besides, in the cases cited earlier, the court's duty has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court. This case has no application to the case before me. In Shah Yeshwant Maganlal, Shah Yeshwant Maganlal v. Trustees of Trust Shah Maganlal Khusaldas and Others ( AIR 1964 Guj. This question does not arise in this case. Besides, in the cases cited earlier, the court's duty has been clearly defined by the Supreme Court. This case has no application to the case before me. In Shah Yeshwant Maganlal, Shah Yeshwant Maganlal v. Trustees of Trust Shah Maganlal Khusaldas and Others ( AIR 1964 Guj. 126 ) the Gujarat High Court observed that the value of the property is not a material thing to be stated in the proclamation of the sale of the property. This question does not arise in the case before me. The judgment does not apply to this case. 15. Two cases from Calcutta Have gone to the extent of holding that the decree holder's act of stating a low value may amount to fraud on the court. In Jyotish Chandra Rakhit Jyotish Chandra Rakhit v. Smt. Parbati Bala ( AIR 1977 Cal. 235 ) the value of the property was 10 times more than the value mentioned in the proclamation of sale. In Sisir Kumar Mukherjee Sisir Kumar Mukherjee and Others v. Kanyalal Jhewar and Others ( AIR 1971 Cal. 87 ) the property worth Rs. 60,000/- was sold and valued in the proclamation at Rs. 1,500/-. The decree holders were held guilty of deliberately putting a shockingly low valuation in the proclamation for sale. Following Marudhanayagam Pillai Marudhanayagam Pillai v. Manickavasakam Chettiar ( AIR 1945 PC 67 ) the conduct of the decree holder was held to be a fraud on the court. I do not think it necessary in this case to go that far and hold that fraud has been practised on the court. Nevertheless, the gross undervaluation and the blind acceptance of such value by the court, are features common to the case before me and the cases decided by the Calcutta High Court. The two cases from Calcutta justify my conclusion in regard to the validity of the sale impugned in this petition. 16. For all these reasons the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs, 17. The petitioner has spent Rs. 27,000 = 00 in the proceedings. It is necessary to adjust equities between the parties. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Nambiar graciously agreed to pay back to the petitioner Rs. 27,000 = 00 and interest at the rate of 12% from the date on which the petitioner paid Rs. 27,000 = 00. The petitioner has spent Rs. 27,000 = 00 in the proceedings. It is necessary to adjust equities between the parties. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Nambiar graciously agreed to pay back to the petitioner Rs. 27,000 = 00 and interest at the rate of 12% from the date on which the petitioner paid Rs. 27,000 = 00. The respondent shall pay this amount within 60 days from today.