JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The petitioner/judgment debtor had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. for setting aside sale by auction during execution proceedings. The suit, out of which the execution proceedings had arisen, was for recovery of money. The suit was decreed to the tune of Rs. 4000/- with 18% interest per annum with effect from 20th May, 1986 and to the tune of Rs. 2350/- with interest at the rate of 22% interest per annum with effect from 20th May, 1986. In order to recover the said amount, the decree holder respondent No. 1 in the proceeding before me had filed an application for execution. In the said execution application respondent No. 1 had sought attachment of house bearing No. 458/C situated at Davorlim, Opposite Laxmi Niwas, Margao in plot under Survey No. 87 of Plot No. 32B. Even though the respondent No. 1 had sought for attachment of immovable property, but the Civil Judge J.D., Margao on account of sheer carelessness on his part ordered attachment of movable property vide Order dated 10-1-92. However, attachment order dated 24th January, 1992 under Order 21, Rule 54 C.P.C. was fortunately issued in respect of the immovable property namely residential house bearing No. 458-C situated at Davorlim, Opposite Laxmi Niwas, Margao in Plot No. 32B. The survey number which had been given by the decree holder respondent No. 1 in the execution application was, however, omitted in the said attachment order which was served on the judgment-debtor namely the petitioner. In the said notice for attachment, Civil Judge J.D., Margao had directed the judgment-debtor namely the petitioner to attend the Court on 2nd April, 1992 to take notice of the date fixed for settling the terms of proclamation of sale. On 17-7-1992 decree-holder namely respondent No. 1 filed the application under Order 21, Rule 64 C.P.C. for settling terms of sale of proclamation and for fixing a date for public auction. Such application is required to be verified by the decree-holder in terms of Order 21, Rule 66(3) C.P.C. However, the application filed by the decree holder for the said purpose on 17-7-1992 was not at all verified. In fact, the application was signed by Advocate for decree-holder and the said application was not even signed by the decree-holder. Along with the said application a draft sale proclamation was filed. In fact, the application was signed by Advocate for decree-holder and the said application was not even signed by the decree-holder. Along with the said application a draft sale proclamation was filed. However neither in the application nor in the said draft of sale proclamation any detail was given in respect of the value of the property sought to be auctioned. Second proviso to Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. provides that the Court shall not enter in the sale proclamation its own value of the property but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both the parties. The terms of sale proclamation were drawn on 11th August, 1972, wherein approximate value of the property shown was Rs. 30,000/- and it cannot be ascertained from the record as to how the said valuation was arrived at in the sale proclamation. No specific notice for drawing terms of sale proclamation was given to the petitioner and the sale proclamation was ordered to be issued on 17-7-1992 itself when application for the said purpose had been filed by Advocate for the decree holder on the same day. This sale proclamation was published in the newspaper. It appears that the auction which was fixed on 29th August, 1992 could not take place on account of some objections raised by the office. These facts can be found in application dated 11-9-92 filed by the Advocate for the decree holder. One of the objections was insufficient description of the suit property and Advocate for the decree holder by application dated 11-9-92 furnished full details of the property. At this stage I would like to point out that a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in (Jaikisandas Balchand Pamnani and another v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others)1, A.I.R. 1991 Bombay 341 has held that a material misdescription in sale proclamation would vitiate the same. It may also be pointed out here that Civil Judge, J.D., Margao in Order dated 11th March, 1994 which was passed on application of the Judgment-debtor namely the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. has held that this proclamation was not properly made or published. These findings were never challenged by the decree holder either by filing a counter appeal or in this revision. These findings were never challenged by the decree holder either by filing a counter appeal or in this revision. 2.After the full description of the property was given by the Advocate for the decree-holder on 11-9-92, the auction was fixed on 25th September, 1992. Notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtor namely petitioner which was served on him on 22-9-92. A fresh proclamation was drawn on 16th September, 1992 incorporating detailed description of the property to be sold and this proclamation was published in terms of Order 21, Rule 54(2) C.P.C. on 23-9-92 i.e. before two days prior to the date of the auction. It may also be pointed out that this sale proclamation was drawn without any notice whatsoever to the judgment-debtor namely the petitioner. The auction was held on 25th September, 1992 and the house as well as the property around was purchased by auction purchaser who is respondent No. 2 in this proceeding for Rs. 56,000. 3.On 8th October, 1992 the judgment-debtor namely the petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. upon which impugned order was passed by the courts below. The matter was argued at length before me by learned counsel for the parties. 4.Learned Advocate Shri M.B. D'Costa related the background in which the impugned order was passed which I have already enumerated above. His main contention is that the first proclamation was held to be bad by the courts below and insofar as the second proclamation is concerned, no notice was given to the judgment-debtor for drawing up the terms of sale proclamation in terms of Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. According to him such notice is mandatory. In this respect he placed reliance on rulings of some other High Courts but was not able to cite any ruling of the Bombay High Court on the subject. Subsequently, however, when the matter was fixed for order, learned Advocate Shri M.B. D'Costa with the permission of the Court sought to produce ruling of the Apex Court in (Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh)2, 1994(1) S.C.C. 131 . He also pointed out that the first proclamation was only in relation to the house, whereas while drawing the second proclamation of which no notice was given to the judgment-debtor, plot of 502 sq. metres was added. He also pointed out that the first proclamation was only in relation to the house, whereas while drawing the second proclamation of which no notice was given to the judgment-debtor, plot of 502 sq. metres was added. He also contended that the manner in which the auction was hurriedly held has caused serious prejudice to the judgment-debtor since the result of such hurry was that the property which was auctioned did not fetch proper value. 5.Advocate Shri N. Sardessai, submitted at the outset that the concurrent findings of the two courts below cannot be upset in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, even if the property is not attached under Order 21, Rule 54 C.P.C., such property can still be sold. He further contended that notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. is not mandatory and in this respect reliance was placed on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in (Sundrabai Ramchandra Rabade and another v. Anandrao Haribhau Rabade and another)3, A.I.R. 1973 Bombay 301. It was further contended that non-issuance of notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. would be only an irregularity and until and unless nexus is established between the irregularity and the resulting alleged low price, the judgment-debtor cannot succeed. On this aspect he relied on (Radhy Shyam v. Shyam Behari Singh)4, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2337, (Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar v. Sushilaben Manilal Dangarwala and others)5, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 770 and a ruling of the Delhi High Court in (M/s. Bhasin Film Corporation v. M/s. Shalimar Cinema and others)6, A.I.R. 1983 Delhi 317. It was also contended by him that no objections were raised by the judgment-debtor when the auction took place, even though he was present and the objection raised subsequently on 8-10-92 pointing out defects in the sale proclamation could not be entertained. It was also contended that even assuming erroneous valuation had been given in the sale proclamation, since the auction purchaser was in part possession of the house, no one would come to purchase such property. 6.The first and foremost point which is required to be examined in this revision is as to whether provision relating to notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. is mandatory or directory. A Division Bench of this Court had held that such notice was directory and not mandatory. 6.The first and foremost point which is required to be examined in this revision is as to whether provision relating to notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. is mandatory or directory. A Division Bench of this Court had held that such notice was directory and not mandatory. However, this proposition of law has not been accepted by the Apex Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh (supra) and it is necessary to record the observations of the Apex Court on this question. It has been pointed out by the Apex Court in the said judgment that service of notice on judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C., unless waived by appearance or remained ex-parte is a fundamental step in the procedure of the Court in execution; the absence of notice causes irremediable injury to the judgment-debtor; the purpose of a notice to judgment-debtor for drawing sale proclamations is that the value of the property is correctly recorded therein so that the prospective bidders would know its value so as to make up their mind to offer the price; absence of notice to the judgment-debtor disables him to offer his estimate of the value who better knows its value and a sale made without notice to the judgment-debtor is a nullity since it divests the judgment-debtor of his right, title and interest in his property without an opportunity. The Apex Court deprecated the casual approach of the courts in drawing sale proclamation, without adhering to the provisions of law. It was pointed out by the Apex Court that it is incumbent on the Court to be scrupulous to extreme and no action of the Court or of its officer should be such as to give rise to the criticism that it is done in a casual way. In fact, in an earlier judgment the Apex Court had made similar observations in (M/s. Shalimar Cinema v. Bhasin Film Corporation and another)7, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2081. It was pointed out therein that the Court has duty to see that the requirements of Order 21, Rule 66 are properly complied with. In any sale under the direction of the Court, it is incumbent on the Court to be scrupulous to the extreme and no action of the Court or its officers should give rise to the criticism that it was done in an indifferent or in a casual way. In any sale under the direction of the Court, it is incumbent on the Court to be scrupulous to the extreme and no action of the Court or its officers should give rise to the criticism that it was done in an indifferent or in a casual way. 7.In the case under consideration the sale proclamation was drawn without any notice to the judgment debtor and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Desh Gupta's case the sale would be nullity ab initio. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment that the procedure adopted by the Court in non-compliance of Order 21, Rule 66 is in flagrant breach of the mandatory provision and the sale would be nullity ab initio, in such cases. Moreover, as I have already pointed out it is not known as to how in the sale proclamation the value of the property was shown as Rs. 30,000/-. In (Gajadhar Prasad and others v. Babu Bhakta Ratan and others)8, 1973(2) S.C.C. 629 , it was made abundantly clear that when stating estimated value of the property to be sold, the Court must not accept merely ipse dixit of one side and that the judgment-debtor should have an adequate opportunity to give his own estimate of such value. In the first sale proclamation only the house was included, but in the second sale proclamation the plot was also included which was sold in auction. No notice of drawing up of the terms of sale proclamation after the inclusion of the said plot was given to the petitioner. Moreover, the sale proclamation was not published in any newspaper though, it is not a must. The sale proclamation was published on 23-9-92 and the auction was held on 25-9-92 which shows that there was not even sufficient time between the publication of the sale proclamation and the date of sale. There is purpose behind giving wide publicity to the sale proclamation and the said purpose is that the judgment-debtor must get proper and adequate price for his property. Moreover, in this case while including the plot for the purpose of sale, the Court did not examine whether at all it was necessary to sell the plot because if the sale of house itself could satisfy the decretal amount, there would be no necessity to sell the land. Moreover, in this case while including the plot for the purpose of sale, the Court did not examine whether at all it was necessary to sell the plot because if the sale of house itself could satisfy the decretal amount, there would be no necessity to sell the land. There is a duty cast on the Court under Order 21, Rule 66(2)(a) of C.P.C. to determine whether part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree. No such exercise was done by the trial Judge. In fact, the entire process relating to sale proclamation suffers from material irregularities which are, by itself, sufficient to set aside the sale specially in view of the mandatory provision of Notice under Order 21, Rule 66(2) C.P.C. 8.For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is bound to succeed and the revision is accordingly allowed. The auction sale in question is set aside. The impugned order are accordingly hereby set aside. Rule made absolute. In the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Revision application allowed.