Guha, J.We are invited in this rule to set aside the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Howrah, on 4th April and 9th May 1930, in Misc. Case No. 18 of 1929, arising out of Title Execution Case No. 91 of 1928. The effect of these two orders appears to be this: that the valuation stated by the decree-holders on the one hand, and that made by the judgment-debtors Engineer on the other, of the properties to be sold in execution of a, decree, have been stated in the proclamation of sale, drawn up under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., without an enquiry by the Court, as to the valuation of the properties. As it has been Repeatedly held in this Court, it is desirable that an enquiry should be made by the Court executing a decree, for the purpose of arriving at a fairly accurate valuation of the property to be sold in (execution, and to state the value so determined in the sale proclamation. It cannot however be laid down as a general proposition that it must be done in every case. The Court might, in the circumstances of a particular case, be justified in stating two separate valuations of the property to be sold, as given, by the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, as it may not be possible, even on an elaborate and careful enquiry, to estimate the value, with any degree of: accuracy, and state the valuation in the proclamation of sale, so as to satisfy strictly the requirements of the law, as contained in Order 21, Rule 66 (2) (e). Reference in this connexion may be made to the judgment of this Court in Lachira Vs. Rameswar Singh and Others, , as also to the case of Bejoy Singh Dadhulia Vs. Ashutosh Gossami and Others, .

2. The facts of the case giving rise to the application on which this rule was granted, have been placed before us in detail. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and of the materials on the record, some of which, we have examined for ourselves, we are unable to say that the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge of which mention has been made above, call for an interference under the powers of revision vested in this Court. In view particularly of the litigations pending in different Courts, to which reference has been made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party in this rule, it would not, in our judgment, be possible for the Court below to make an estimate of the value of the properties to be sold in execution, either accurately, or in a manner acceptable to the parties, and to state the value in the proclamation of sale, as a reliable piece of information for the intending purchaser.

3. In the result, we affirm the orders against which this rule is directed and discharge the rule with costs. The hearing-fee is assessed at three gold mohurs.

M.C. Ghose, J.

4. I agree.