T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER by Mr. K. K. Lahoti, Advocate. Respondents by Mr. R. A. Roman, Advocate. Heard. In pursuance of a money decree there was auction sale of the property described as under : (I) In the east, the house of Nana bhaiya; (ii) In the west the house of Nana bhaiya; (iii) In the north Public Passage; (iv) In the south Public Passage; ( 2 ) THIS property was auctioned on 20th of november, 1976. A sale certificate was issued in terms of Order 21. Rule 94. This sale certificate was issued on 13th of September, 1977. Later on. when possession was sought to be taken an objection was taken that the sale certificate is being sought to be executed visa-vis property description whereof were as under : (I) General passage in the east; (ii) In the West House of Pooran chand Jain which was built in the year 1976, (iii) In the north public passage and house of Nana Bhaiya; (iv) Public passage;when the aforementioned objection was raised, an application was filed for amendment of the sale certificate. This sale certificate stand amended. It is against the order passed by the court below by which the sale certificate has been amended is challenged in this revision petition. This order was passed by the trial Court on 6th of September, 1996. ( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that in the auction notice, description given were as indicated in para 1 above. Possession is sought to be taken of the property which is described in para 2 above. The learned counsel for the respondent purchaser submits that the certificate could be amended. According to him, the judgment debtor has only one house. He was aware of what is being sold and therefore, he cannot raise any objection. ( 4 ) IT be seen that the object of giving public notice is to see that maximum number of prospective purchasers come and take part in the auction proceedings. If the description of the property is wrongly given, then, it may mislead the prospective purchaser and a per son who might otherwise be interested may not come forward and take part in auction. It is this aspect of the. matter, which is required to be taken note of. If the description of the property is wrongly given, then, it may mislead the prospective purchaser and a per son who might otherwise be interested may not come forward and take part in auction. It is this aspect of the. matter, which is required to be taken note of. If there is defect in the notice then obviously, the prospective pur chasers may not come in large number and the bid in the auction may not be up to the mark. ( 5 ) IF the above factor is taken into consideration, then, the petitioner is right in his submission that by giving wrong description of property in the notice by which public auction was sought to be conducted his rights have been materially effected. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision given by the rajasthan-High Court reported as Sobla v. Jethmal. In the above decision, it was observed that if there is misdescription of property in sale certificate then this can be cor rected by resorting to Section 151 of Civil procedure Code. ( 7 ) RELIANCE, is also being placed a decision given in Sheodhyan Singh v. Mst. Sanichara Kuer. The dispute in the above case was regarding boundary and khasra number. It was observed that in this situation, the khasra number and boundary would prevai! reliance has also been placed on a decision reported as M/s. Bhondu Sao Ranidash doma Sao. It was held that when there is conflict between description and boundaries then boundaries would prevail. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is property which is described in the auction notice should be taken note of while determining as to which property was sold. For this, a reliance is being placed on a decision given in the case reported as dagdulal Tilokchand Gangrade v. Rameshwar ramkaran. ( 9 ) THE position in this case is entirely different. ( 10 ) IN the present case, in the auction notice wrong description was given. If this be the position then, the 'situation would be different. ( 11 ) I am of the opinion that in the present case, in the auction notice the property was wrongly described. ( 9 ) THE position in this case is entirely different. ( 10 ) IN the present case, in the auction notice wrong description was given. If this be the position then, the 'situation would be different. ( 11 ) I am of the opinion that in the present case, in the auction notice the property was wrongly described. The property which was described in auction notice was surrounded by house of Nana Bhaiya in the east and west and in the north and south there was public thoroughfare. This house is not subject matter of sale certificate. The certificate does not make mention of any property surrounded by house of Nana Bhaiya. If this be the position, then it can definitely be said that by wrong description of the property in the auction notice, the objector has suffered. It is possible that prospective purchasers were misled and did not reach at spot with a view to take part in the auction proceedings. Thus, there is material discrepancy when property is wrongly described in public notice and when it is differently described in sale certificate. ( 12 ) IF this be the position, then, the course adopted by the executing court cannot be said to be apt As such, order passed by the court below is set aside leaving it to pass such order as is permissible under the law. ( 13 ) IT has been pointed out that judgment-debtor has deposited entire decretal amount. This aspect of the matter be also taken note of when any fresh proceedings are taken. Revision allowed. .