1. This application is dismissed. As regards the third ground of appeal, I state most emphatically that it is wrong. It is alleged that under Order 21, Rule 66, it is incumbent on the decree-holder and the Court to see that the proclamation is correct and the sale following an incorrect proclamation must be set aside. This is quite a wrong view to take of the duties of the decree-holder and the Court. Sir George Knox who had large experience in this matter was continuously of opinion and always informed the subordinate Courts that it was as much the duty of the judgment-debtor as of the decree-holder to see that the sale proclamation under Order 21, Rule 66 was prepared correctly. If a judgment-debtor goes to sleep over his right he is well punished if a wrong sale proclamation is prepared, and he has only to blame himself if he suffers any loss through such incorrect preparation. The terms of Order 21, Rule 66 were specially prepared on a memorandum submitted by Sir George Knox making it incumbent that all parties should be present at the time of the preparation of the sale proclamation. I have always insisted upon this as an administrative Judge. A revision that is based on a scandalously wrong argument must not be permitted to succeed.