JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The judgment-debtor, becomes aggrieved, from, an order, rendered, by the learned Executing Court, wherethrough, his objections, cast, under the mandate, of, Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, hence became dismissed, and, hence thereagainst, he has reared, the, instant appeal, before this Court. 2. Upon, the, apt conclusive, and, binding money decree, as, comprised in the amount, as, embodied in the apposite execution petition, becoming pronounced, vis-a-vis, the decree-holder bank, thereupon, the apposite conclusive, and, binding decree, was, put to coercive realization, before the learned Executing Court, (i) given the judgment-debtor, as disclosed, in an order made, on, 1.8.2003, hence by the learned Executing Court, rather, making only, a, part deposit, of, Rs. 1,50,000/-, towards, the, apt satisfaction, of, the entire decretal amount. 3. Though, the judgment-debtor, and, the decree-holder, were represented, by their respective counsels, before the learned Executing Court, and, also after all the requisite mandatory compliances, becoming meted, by the decree-holder, (i) thereupon the learned Executing Court, under, an order, recorded, on 17.11.2003, hence ordered, for, issuance of warrants, of, attachment, for, attaching, the, assets, of, the judgmentdebtor, (ii) however, on, the, condition, vis-a-vis, the decree-holder, filing, the list, of, attachable property, of, the judgment-debtor, and, also the decree-holder, hence furnishing, the, requisite process fee. Since from 17.11.2003, upto, 31.3.2014, there occurred inter-se confabulations, inter-se the decree-holder, and, the judgment-debtor, vis-a-vis, the, amount(s), of, deposit, of, decretal amount, after waiver, of, interest thereon, hence thereupto, the, decree-holder, omitted to take all the requisite completest steps, for, constraining, the, learned Executing Court, to, hence issue warrants of attachment. However, on 17.5.2004, the learned Executing Court, again ordered, for, issuance of warrants, of, attachment, vis-a-vis, the, judgmentdebtor''s immovable property, yet, subject, to, the decreeholder, furnishing, the, list of attachable property(ies), of, the judgment-debtor. It appears, that, the afore requisite completest steps, become taken, by the decree holder, and, thereafter the warrants, of, attachment, also became implemented, as is evident, from, a reading of an order, made, on 15.1.2005, hence by the learned Executing Court. However, thereafter, on 3.3.2005, an application, under, the provisions, of, Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, became instituted, by the decree-holder, and, since no reply thereto, became instituted by the judgmentdebtor, (iii) hence thereupon, the learned Executing Court, ordered, the, making, of, a schedule for putting, the, attached property, to, auction-sale, on, the completest steps becoming taken, by the decree- holder. However, thereafter, on 3.3.2005, an application, under, the provisions, of, Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, became instituted, by the decree-holder, and, since no reply thereto, became instituted by the judgmentdebtor, (iii) hence thereupon, the learned Executing Court, ordered, the, making, of, a schedule for putting, the, attached property, to, auction-sale, on, the completest steps becoming taken, by the decree- holder. Since, the, ordained completest steps also became taken, by, the decree-holder, hence, the apposite proclamation became issued, for, the holding, of, apposite auction, and, the, co-respondent No.2 became declared, to, be the auction purchaser, vis-a-vis, the attached property, of, the judgment-debtor. Since a perusal, of, the order recorded, on 3.3.2005, displays qua thereat, an application becoming instituted, under, the mandate of Order 41 Rule 66 CPC, before the learned Executing Court, by the decree holder, (iv) and, yet, with no reply thereto becoming furnished, by the judgment-debtor, and, hence thereat, the schedule, for, putting, to, sale through public auction, the attached property, of the judgment-debtor, became ordered, to be issued, (v) thereupon, the learned counsel, for, the aggrieved judgment-debtor, is, not empowered, to, make any contention, hence, therebefore qua their occurring, any, breaches, vis-a-vis, the mandate, as, embodied in Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, (vi) given necessarily, his acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the schedule, as became drawn, by, the learned Executing Court, on 13.5.2005, for, thereafter putting, to, sale, through pubic auction, the attached assets of the judgment-debtor, nor also, the proviso occurring hence underneath sub rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, is, available for recoursing, rather, by, the judgment- debtor, (viii) as the echoings, therein, do not cast, any statutory injunction, upon, the learned Executing Court, to, suo moto include the value(s), of, the attached assets, of the judgment debtor, (ix) yet, a mandate, is, borne therein, vis-a-vis, the market value, of, the attached assets, becoming enjoined, to be included in the apposite proclamation, only if either, the decree-holder, or, the judgmentdebtor, rather, purveys, the, apt value, vis-a-vis, the learned Executing Court. Since as aforestated, vis-a-vis, the application moved, under, the provisions, of, Order 21 Rule 66 CPC, hence, by the decree-holder before, the, learned Executing Court, the judgment- debtor, did not prefer any objection thereto, nor, the decree-holder, or, the judgment debtor, rather purveyed, to, the learned Executing Court, their respective estimates, of, the, market value, of, the attached property, of the judgmentdebtor, (x) thereupon even if the proclamation, of sale, omitted, to, delineate, the, estimates, of, the market value, of the assets of the judgment-debtor, thereupon there is, no, apparent breach visited, upon, the mandate, occurring in, the proviso, underneath sub rule (2) of Order 21 Rule 66. 4. Be that as it may, on successful completion, of, auction proceedings, and, wherein co-respondent No.2, hence, became declared, as, the auctionpurchaser, the judgment-debtor, instituted an application, cast under the mandate of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, claiming therein that, the, auction proceedings, became, ingrained with pervasive vice, of, fraud, and, irregularity, hence theirs becoming amenable, for, being quashed. The gravamen, of, the afore, is, founded, upon, the property of judgment-debtor Mukand Lal, becoming not put to sale, rather, the property of one Murlidhar, son of Mudand Lal becoming put to sale. The learned Executing Court, dismissed, the afore objections, on the trite fulcrum, vis-a-vis, one Ghambir Singh, the Kanungo concerned, and, who became directed, to, execute the warrants of sale, hence on the spot, making acquiescences, in, his testification, vis-a-vis, the occurrence, in his report, qua, the name, of, Murlidhar, instead of Munand Lal, being, a, sequel, of, sheer inadvertence, and, also being a clerical mistake. The afore reason would became belied, only, upon evidence hence becoming adduced, and, it becoming comprised, in, the jamabandies, as, appertaining, to, the auctioned property, rather making vivid echoings, vis-a-vis, the owner of the auctioned property, being not, one Mukand Lal judgment-debtor, and, rather being one Murlidhar. The afore evidence become neither adduced nor exists on record, hence, the, meteings, of, credence, vis-a-vis, the testification, of, Ghambir Singh, hence was both apt, and, befitting. 5. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal, is, dismissed, and, the order impugned, before this Court, is, affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.