(1.) This C.R.P. is by the judgment - debtor whose property has been sold on 13-12-1123 in execution of the decree. He moved an application for setting aside the sale under
(2.) It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant sale was not only for the decree amount representing the arrears of rent but also for costs which stands as an independent item of debt under the decree and that the sale having been conjointly for both these debts should have been set aside as per his application. Reliance was placed on Balakrishnan Nair v. Bhaskaran Nair [ 1959 KLT 544 ) where it was held that if the decree covered two items of debt one being within the purview of the Act and the other without, and the court sale was for the aggregate sum of both, the entire sale has to be set aside under S.22 of the Act. It is contended therefore that the costs portion of the decree would constitute a debt within the definition of the Act and a sale held for the costs and the arrears of rent has to be set aside under S.22. I am unable to accept this contention. The interest accruing on a debt and the costs incurred in a litigation in relation to the debt must be held to be accessory to the debt itself and must therefore partake the same nature. It follows that the entire debt for which the court sale was held was outside the Act, and the order of the court below disallowing the petition under S.22 has to be held correct.
(3.) The C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.