JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict recorded on 24.12.2011, by the learned District Judge, Solan, upon, an application cast under the provisions, of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereunder, the judgment debtor sought relief, for, setting aside the sale through public auction, vis-a-vis, its attached immovable properties, for, realization therefrom, the conclusive binding decretal sums of money. 2. During the pendency of the execution petition before the learned executing Court, objections stood reared therebefore, by certain objectors, namely, Geeta Devi, Neeta Devi, Smt. Reena, Miss Madhu, Miss Khema, Chetna, Girish, Smt. Nirmla, Sonu, Deepa, Ravi, wives, sons and daughters respectively of J.D. Nos. 1 and 2, against, the coercive realization, from, the immovable attached assets of the JDs, the decretal sums, given theirs therein holding the apt co-parcenary interest. However, the afore objections stood dismissed under orders recorded on 22.06.2011, orders, whereof, uncontrovertedly acquire conclusivity. Furthermore, thereunder, the learned executing court, proceeded to order for issuance of a proclamation, setting forth therein, the, schedule for putting to sale through public auction, the, attached immovable assets of the JDs. The sale through public auction was ordered, thereunder to occur, on 23.8.2011 and, the apt report in respect thereof, was, ordered to be purveyed, vis-a-vis, it, on 31.08.2011. In pursuance thereof, the sale through public auction hence occurred, on 23.8.2011. The highest bidder in the apt sale of the attached immovable properties of the JDs, was respondent No. 2 herein, and, the bid amount, as, accepted by the auction bidder, is, comprised in a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/-. The afore amount afforded, and, accepted by the person, hence holding the auction proceedings, is, contended to be grossly minimal, and, disproportionate, vis-a-vis, the genuine value, of, the attached immovable assets, of the JD, hence, the JD instituted an application, cast under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90, hence for setting aside the auction sale conducted, on 23.8.2011. As aforestated, a dis-affirmative verdict was recorded thereon, by the learned executing Court and, being aggrieved therefrom, the JD has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 3. As aforestated, a dis-affirmative verdict was recorded thereon, by the learned executing Court and, being aggrieved therefrom, the JD has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would succeed in his strivings, for ensuring the setting aside of the apt sale, of, the attached immovable properties of the JD, through, a public auction to respondent No. 2 herein, (i) only upon, material on record making clear and candid evincings, qua, the mandate enshrined in Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC, anchored, upon, evident material irregularity or fraud erupting, vis-a-vis, the publishing of proclamation or in, the, conducting, of, the auction sale, rather making palpable surfacings, (ii) besides the appellant would succeed, upon, its establishing qua the ingredients borne in sub-section (2) of Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC, encapsulating the factum qua proven substantial injury, hence ensuing, vis-a-vis, the JD, in sequel to any irregularity or fraud rather making apt surfacings, in the apt sale, through public auction, of the apt attached immovable property. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in making the afore strivings, has laid much emphasis, upon, the second proviso, vis-a-vis, Order 22, Rule 66 of the CPC and, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “66. Proclamation of sales by public auction:- (1) Where any property is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court. (2) Such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree holder and the judgment-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale, and specify as fairly and accurately as possible:- (a) the property to be sold (or, where a part of the property would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, such part). (b) the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the state, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government. (c) any incumbrance to which the property is liable. (d) the amount for the recovery which the sale is ordered. (b) the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the state, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government. (c) any incumbrance to which the property is liable. (d) the amount for the recovery which the sale is ordered. (e) every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge of the jature and value of the property: Provided that where notice of the date for settling the terms of the proclamation has been given to the judgment-debtor by means of an order under rule 54, it shall not be necessary to give notice under this rule to the judgment-debtor unless the Court otherwise directs: Provided further that nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring the Court to enter in the proclamation of sale its own estimate of the value of the property, but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties.....” On his reading, the statuory coinage “but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties” occurring therein, he submits that it holds, the, connotation, (i) qua it being imperative for the executing Court to include, in the apposite proclamation, the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties, (ii) and, he further submits that even, if, neither the JD, or the decree holder purveys, vis-a-vis, the executing Court, the estimate of the value, of, the apt attached immovable assets, (iii) nonetheless, the coinage “ but the proclamation shall include the estimate, if any, given by either or both of the parties” rather making it obligatory, upon, the executing Court, to, yet insist, for, purveyings, by the JD or the decree holder, the estimate, of, the value, of, the apt attached immovable assets or property. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (iv) as, it is founded, upon, a gross misreading, of the afore phrase, occurring in the second proviso, vis-a-vis, Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC, (v) misreading whereof, is, visible, from the fact, that, the statutory obligation cast, upon, the executing court, to imperatively hence include in the proclamation of sale, the estimate, of, the value of the attached assets/immovable property, arises, only upon estimates thereof being purveyed either by the JD or by the decree holder, (vi) and, obviously upon non purveying thereof, it being not obligatory, upon, the executing court to include in the proclamation of sale, the, value of the attached assets/immovable property. Uncontrovertedly, since neither the JD nor the decree holder purveyed, vis-a-vis, the learned executing Court, the estimates, of, the value, of, the attached assets/immovable property of the JD, thereupon, it was not incumbent, upon, the executing Court, to, include in the proclamation of sale, the values thereof. 5. Be that as it may, a perusal of the records also ought to make, a, clear disclosure qua the ingredients, borne, in clause (e) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 of the CPC, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinabove, also evidently standing meted apt satiation, (i) given, the, mandatory language, wherewithin, sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 22 of the CPC, is cast, given the occurrence of word “shall” therein, and, its standing succeeded by the there underneath hence various clauses, (ii) thereupon, hence a, mandatory obligation, stood fastened, upon, the learned executing Court, to mete the fullest, and, the absolutest compliance, with, the trite applicable hereat provisions, of clause (e) thereof. The peremptoriness of adherence, vis-a- vis, the mandate of clause (e) to sub-rule (2) of Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC, by the learned executing Court, (iii) concomitantly enjoined it, to include in the apt proclamation, every material aspect, for rather enabling the auction purchaser, to discern therefrom, the nature and the value of the property, in respect whereof, he or they make their bids, in, the apt auction proceedings. The holistic, and, salutary purpose for peremptory insistences, for, rather strict compliance therewith being hence meted, is, two fold, (a) to enable the auction bidder to make an offer not less, than, the amount mentioned in the proclamation; (b) for enabling the JD to ensure that it holds, the, appropriate valuation, and, in case, its valuation is higher than the amount sought to be realised, through, sale of the attached properties, in, the public auction, and, the accepted bid, is, equivalent thereto, (c) thereupon, the amount exceeding the decretal amount, being refundable to the JD, hence, visiting, of, any substantial injury, qua him being forestalled, also any ensuable prejudice being encumbered, vis-a-vis, the judgment debtor also being thwarted 6. In fathoming, whether the afore strict compliance with, the mandate of clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC, is, provenly established, (i) a glance, visa- vis, the order setting forth, the schedule for putting to sale through public auction, the attached immovable properties, of the JD, drawn on 22.06.2011 is imperative, besides an allusion is imperative, to, the proclamation notice. However, an allusion, to, the orders drawn on 22.06.2011, whereunder, the schedule for putting, to, sale through public action, the apt attached immovable assets/properties of the JD, stands delineated, (ii) and, an allusion to the proclamation notice issued, in pursuance thereto, rather unravels qua no strict mandatory compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandate of clause (3) to sub-rule (2) of Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC, being meted, by the learned executing Court. The effect thereof, is, qua even though sub-rule (2) of Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC, forbids, the, setting aside of sale, on, the ground of irregularity or fraud, in, the publishing, of, notice or in the conducting of auction proceedings, but, with an exception thereto, being cast therein, (i) comprised, in, upon the Court being satisfied qua the applicant being visisted with substantial injury, by reason , of, any irregularity or fraud, thereupon, given as afore referred, with no strict compliance, vis-a-vis, the mandatory provisions, borne in clause (e) of sub-rule (2) of Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC, being meted, (ii) also when, the, afore holistic and salutary purpose behind its engraftement, is, defeated, (iii) thereupon, when substantial injury has ensued, vis-a-vis, the JD, hence, renders, within the ambit of sub-rule (2), of, Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC, the sale through public auction of the attached immovable property of the JD, vis-a-vis, respondent No. 2 herein, to stand vitiated, and, also warrants it being quashed and set aside. 7. During the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, an application, cast under the provisions of Section 151 of the CPC, stands instituted, by the appellant/applicant herein, where-through, the appellant/applicant has strived, to place on record, the, value of the attached assets/immovable property of the JD, and, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 4,51,200/- (i) therefrom, he has made an endeavour, to establish, that, hence substantial financial injury, standing visited upon him, given, the, meager amount being fetched, in the sale, through, public auction, vis-a-vis, the attached immovable properties of the JD, (ii) whereas, upon, strict compliance, being meted, vis-a-vis, clause (e) to sub-rule (2) of Order 22, Rule 66 of the CPC, thereupon, the aforesaid prejudice or the afore substantial injury, rather would stand mitigated. The aforesaid valuation is just and essential, for, enabling the learned executing Court, to, after the impugned verdict, being quashed and set aide, and, its receiving the extant lis, on remand, and, after it being tendered therebefore, to hence incorporate, it, in the proclamation of sale, of the attached assets/immovable properties of the JD, (iii) hence, the leave is accorded to the JD, to, place on record the valuation report aforesaid, whereunder, the value of the attached immovable property of the JD, hence, stand assessed, in a sum of Rs. 4,51,200/- (iv) and, the learned executing Court shall grant an opportunity to the DH to adduce evidence, in rebuttal thereof. 8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant appeal is allowed, and, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. In sequel, the sale of the attached immovable property of the JD, through public auction is set aside, and, the matter is remanded to the learned executing Court, to, redraw the sale proceedings, through, publication, after bearing in mind the afore leave being granted to the JD, to, tender there-before, the aforesaid valuation report, of, the attached property of the JD. The parties are directed to appear before the learned executing Court, on 25th October, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.