BRAHMANANDA CHOUDHURY Vs. PRAHLAD PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision if directed against an order of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara dismissing an application under Section 151, Civil P C for amendment of the sale certificate issued Under Order 21, Rule 94, Civil P. C.

(2.) THE petitioner obtained a money decree in Money Suit No. 110 of 1968 and filed Execution Case No. 19 of 1970 for realisation of the decretal dues by attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the iudsment -debtor. Out of the five lots of immovable properties attached and advertised for sale, only lots Nos. 4 and 5 were put to sale and the petitioner purchased the same with the permission of the Court. These two lots of properties are situated at mouza Naldhalia as mentioned in the execution petition, the attachment process, the sale proclamation and the news paper. But in the sale certificate issued by the Court, the name of the mouza was wrongly mentioned as Baipada. On 20 -2 -1973 the petitioner filed an application under Section 151, Civil P. C. for correction of the mistake in the sale certificate, but the learned Munsif dismissed the same. That is why this Civil Revision has been preferred.

(3.) ORDER 21, Rule 94, Civil P. C. Provides that where a sale of immovable property has become absolute the Court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold. It is, therefore, clear that the sale certificate must be based on the sale proclamation. The real test in a case of this type is that which was pointed out by Lord Watson in (1887) ILR 10 Mad 241 (PC), (Pettachi Chettiar v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar) where his Lordship said: