GANGA RAM Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GANGA Ram, Applicant, is the auction purchaser. Hari Shanker Paliwal, opposite party No. 2, obtained a decree against Hira Lal, opposite party No. 1. In execution, the judgment -debtor's house was put to auction on 4 -3 -1968. The Applicant Ganga Ram purchased the same for Rs. 18,600/ -. On 3 -4 -1968 the judgment debtor filed an objection Under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure for the setting aside of the sale. 20 -5 -1968 was fixed by the court for the deposit of the requisite security in support of the objection. The judgment debtor failed to appear on that date. The objection was consequently consigned to the record room by the execution court. In due course the sale was confirmed on 31 -5 -1968.

(2.) ON 3 -7 -1968, the judgment debtor made an application for the setting aside of the order passed on 20 -5 -1968 consigning the objection to the record room. He supported the application by an affidavit giving the reasons for his failure to attend the court on that date. The execution court found that the cause shown was sufficient. It allowed the application on payment of Rs. 30/ - as costs to the auction purchaser. Aggrieved, the auction purchaser has come to this Court. It was urged that the execution court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for the setting aside of an order dismissing the objection Under Order XXI, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure after it had passed an order of confirmation of sale Under Order XXI, Rule 92, Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IT would be seen that the power to confirm a sale accrues only if no application has been made Under Rules 89, 90 or 91 or if such an application is made, it is disallowed. During the pendency of such an application a sale cannot be confirmed. It is by now well settled that the execution court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside an order dismissing an objection Under Order XXI, Rules 89, 90 and 91 Code of Criminal Procedure.