1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal refusing to set aside a sale of certain properties in execution, held on the 17th January, 1921. At this stage, it is conceded that the only ground on which the application to set aside the sale can be supported is that the properties that have been sold are properties in the hands of a Receiver appointed in a partition suit to which the appellant is a party. It is as clear as daylight that on the merits the application entirely fails. The learned Subordinate Judge in the course of his concise and excellent judgment points out that the properties were sold for a sum considerably in excess of that at which they had been valued by the judgment debtor herself. Even, therefore, if there were any irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, the applicant has suffered no loss in consequence thereof. The only objection now pressed is of an entirely formal and technical character. Nothing was said about the Receiver in the course of the proceedings taken for the execution of the decree. The objection was not taken in the application to set aside the sale. It was brought forward only at the hearing of the application. Moreover, the learned Subordinate Judge states that the decree-holder has obtained another decree against the appellant and has obtained the permission of the Court by which the Receiver was appointed to sell the properties in question in execution of that decree. No objection has been made by the Receiver to the sale of those properties.
2. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the objection that these properties were sold in execution without the consent of the Court by which the Receiver was appointed is not such as would vitiate the sale; at most, it was merely an irregularity by which the appellant, the judgment-debtor was not prejudiced. In that view, I would dismiss this appeal with costs, hearing-fee three gold mohurs.
3. I agree.