JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J.
1. This is an application in revision from an order setting aside a sale on appeal. The sale was fixed originally for 18th January 1928 and the usual proclamation for sale had been issued The estimated price given in it was Rs. 2,350. The usual notice had been issued to the judgment-debtor but she did not appear to question the accuracy of the proclamation sale. She got an order of the Court postponing the sale to 26th January 1928. The sale took place on the last mentioned date and the property was sold for Rs. 2,550, i.e., for a price slightly above the estimated price. The judgment-debtor applied under Order 21, Rule 90 for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and substantial injury by reason of it. The first Court dismissed the application holding that neither the one nor the other was proved. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal to the District Judge who appointed two commissioners to value the property. Their report was that the house in question was worth Rs. 4,000. The learned Judge in his order remarks that the postponement was not properly announced and that the house was reported to be worth Rs 4,000. The order is very brief and might well have been fuller. But there is no doubt that what the learned Judge meant was that there was an irregularity, inasmuch as the postponement of the date of sale had not been properly announced and property worth Rs. 4,000 was sold for just over half that amount.
2. In revision the learned advocate for the applicant first contends that it was not open to the judgment-debtor to allege that the property was worth more than the estimated amount given in the proclamation of sale. For this contention he relies on the language of the addition made by this High Court to the proviso to Order 21, Rule 90, under which no application is to be entertained upon any ground which could have been taken by the applicant on or before the date on which the sale proclamation was drawn up. Obviously the application referred to is the application for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. The addition is to the proviso and not to the substantive rule itself. It therefore does not debar the judgment-debtor from showing that substantial injury has been caused on account of some other irregularity. All that it prevents him from doing is to base his application on the ground that the low estimate in the proclamation sale was in itself a material irregularity.
3. Although the learned Judge's order, is not clear, he obviously was of the opinion that it was not properly announced that the sale would take place on 26th January 1928. Although when a sale is adjourned for a period not longer than fourteen days no fresh proclamation need be issued under Order 21, Rule 69(2), the adjournment must be to a specified day and hour under Rule 69(1). If there is no announcement of the specified day and hour to which the sale is adjourned the Court may come to the conclusion that there has been a material irregularity: Babu Ram v. Inamullah A.I.R. 1927 All. 241 and Rup Kishor v. Collector of Etah A.I.R. 1929 All. 948. Even if the learned Judge has committed an error of law in arriving at his conclusion we cannot interfere with his order in revision. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.