TARA CHAND LAKHMICHAND Vs. VISHAN DASS ASA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short contention that is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that there is no bar to his client, who is also a decree-holder of the Judgment-debtor in another decree, in bidding and purchasing the property of the judgment-debtor in execution of a sale held in a decree passed in favour of another decree-holder. For his contention, he has relied on the decision in Maung chit Hlaing v. N. A. R. M. Chetty Firm, AIR 1924 Rang 81. That decision, prima facie, supports his contention; but as will be presently shown, it has no application to the facts of the present case.

(2.) VISHAN Dass got a money decree for Rs. 500 against Chaman Lal. Chaman Lal had paid Rs. 200 to Vishan Dass and only Rs. 300 remained to be paid. This amount was not paid. Vishan Dass, therefore, made an execution application with regard to the balance of the decretal amount on the 22nd April, 1961, and in that application, he got some immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor attached. Tara Chand had also obtained a decree against Chaman Lal and made an application under Section 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rateable distribution. The attached property was put to sale and Tara Chand, without obtaining leave of the Court as required by Order 21, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil procedure, bid at the auction and purchased the property. As a matter of fact, tara Chand had applied for permission to bid at the auction and his application had been rejected. Chaman Lal then brought the present application under Order 21, Rule 72, Sub-clause (3) for setting aside the sale. This application has been allowed by the executing Court. An appeal against this decision was rejected by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) THE language of Order 21, Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus: