JUDGMENT
1. Though such irregularities as have occurred are mainly due to the zamindar’s repeated applications for adjournment, yet, on considering all the facts of the case, we are not prepared to hold that the District Judge was wrong in regarding the irregularities, especially the omission to have the sale tom-tomed, as material and we think that where a material irregularity is proved and it is also proved that the price realized is much below the true value, then it may ordinarily be inferred that the low price was a consequence of the irregularity, even though the manner in which the irregularity produced the low price be not definitely made out. We therefore dismiss this appeal but without costs.
2. We observe that the orders of the District Judge adjourning the sale did not comply with the provisions of Section 291, Civil Procedure Code, which require that adjournments shall be to a specified day and hour. It is of the utmost importance that in these matters the exact provisions of the Code should be followed.
