KISHAN LAL Vs. HAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent certain property of the respondent was put to sale. On the date fixed for the sale the executing Court passed an order staying the sale. A copy of the order was taken by the respondent to the Qurq Amin conducting the saie, and it is alleged that after reading it he returned it to the respondent and proceeded to sell the property. There were bidders including the appellant, who offered Rs. 1000/- and the sale was concluded ig his, favour. More than a month after the sale was held, me respondent filed a petition in the executing Court, the petition expressly purported to be under Order 21 Rule 90, C.P.C. He contended in the petition that the sale was illegal, that no proclamation was made at all with tne result that very few bidders were present and the property worth Rs. 30,000/- was sold to the appellant for Rs. 1000/-, that only his relations and friends were present as bidders, that the sale was held in spite of the stay order issued by the Court and communicated to the Qurq Amin and was consequently null and void and that the sale ought to be set aside on account of material irregularity.

(2.) The executing Court treated the petition as one under Order 21 Rule 90, the period of limitation tor which is admittedly thirty days, vide Article 168 of the Limitation Act, and dismissed it on this ground. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed, by the District Judge, who thought that if the objection raised a question that the sale was null and void, It was one under Section 47, C.P.C. for which the period of limitation may be three years under Article 182 of the Limitation Act. It, therefore, remanded the case to the executing Court for

(3.) Question No. 1: This question is pending before the executing Court itself. The appellate Court by its order in appeal has not given any finding on it. it is stated to the remand order that the case was remanded for deciding the question of validity or the voidness of the sale, Thus it Is for the 'executing Court to decide whether the sale was void on the grounds alleged by the respondent in his objection. Since there was no decision un the question given by the appellate Court, the question did not arise before the learned single Judge and we cannot answer it. It will be for the executing court to answer it, the objection is still pending before it.