GOPAL BUX RAI Vs. BABU SHYAMBEHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by one Gopal Bux Rai praying for revision of an order refusing to vacate a previous order confirming a sale. The petitioner Gopal Bux Rai is the owner of an estate known as the Deogan Estate. The property in question in these proceedings formed part of what was known as the Imli Estate which was a khorposh estate under the Deogan Estate. The opposite party brought a suit (No. 15 of 1936) against Gopal Bux Rai and Jugeshwar Bux Rai and other members of his family, and in due course obtained a mortgage decree. The mortgaged property was put up to sale and purchased by the decree-holder opposite party. Later, Jugeshwar Bux Rai brought a suit to set aside the sale and recover the property and in that suit the present petitioner Gopal Bux Rai was made defendant 2.

(2.) He filed a written statement in which he pleaded that he had no interest whatsoever in the properties which had been sold. On 10 February 1939, the present petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur for protection under the Encumbered Estates Act, and on 5 April 1939, the Commissioner passed an order under Section 2B of the Act prohibiting the sale of the immovable property of Babu Gopal Bux Rai of Deogan in Palamau or any portion thereof in execution of any decree or order of any Civil or Revenue Court pending the issue of the final order on his petition for protection. On 6 April, 1939, this order was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau.

(3.) It appears that the sale in execution of the opposite party's mortgage decree had not been confirmed when the Commissioner's order was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner. On 2 May, 1939, the Deputy Magistrate Subordinate Judge confirmed the sale in favour of the opposite party. On 15 June 1939, the petitioner filed a petition before the Deputy Magistrate Subordinate Judge stating that as the Commissioner had stayed further proceedings in all Courts he prayed that delivery of possession in favour of the opposite party be stayed and he apparently also asked that the order confirming the sale be vacated. On 21 June 1939, the Deputy Magistrate Subordinate Judge by an order of that date declined to vacate his order confirming the sale or to stay dakhaldehani as prayed for. Against these orders the present petition has been preferred.