EBADULLAH KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application praying that I should recall by review my order dated 24th January 1949, allowing the revision filed by the opposite party. I have already mentioned the facts of the case in that order and they need not be repeated here.

(2.) The main point argued by Mr. Walter Dutt then appearing for the auction-purchaser-opposite party, was that, in the absence of an application by the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 90, Civil P. C., the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale. For the reasons given in the said order, I accepted this contention. The only point then argued by Mr. Gopalji Mehrotra, counsel for the judgment-debtor, was that the auction-purchaser had no right of appeal against the order of the Munsif to the learned Additional Civil Judge. No other point was argued either by the one or the other counsel, and none other is mentioned in that order. It is not suggested by the counsel for the judgment-debtor, now seeking review, that any other point was then actually argued.

(3.) The present applicant, namely, the judgment-debtor, now applying for review, is represented to press this application by Mr. G.S. Pathak. He has argued a new point, viz. that the mere fact that the Amin had accepted the highest bid made by the auction-purchaser did not conclude the sale, which would have been completed only after an order in that behalf had been passed by the learned Munsif, and that no such order having admittedly beets passed, there was no 'sale,' for the cancellation of which there could be any question of applying under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. He has also contended that the Munsif having issued general instructions to the Amins that, in case there was a disparity between the value of the property mentioned in the sale proclamation and the amount of the highest bid, they should not conclude the sale, the Amin in the present case also had no such power. He urged that my order, now sought to be reviewed, ignored these aspects. and that the same constituted an error 'apparent on the face of the record' within the meaning of Order 47 (1), Civil P. C. The position, therefore, is that fresh points by a fresh counsel have now been raised, and it is desired that, in view of these, I should set aside my order of 24th January 1949 and dismiss the revision filed by the auction-purchaser.