BINRAJ MARWARI Vs. RAM SAHAI MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a decree-holder's petition for revision of an order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur on 4 September 1939. The decree-holder petitioners had obtained a money decree in the Calcutta High Court which had been transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bhagalpur for execution. In the execution proceedings 24 items of property were put up to sale severally, and the total price obtained for these 24 properties amounted to Rs. 1755.

(2.) On 21 April 1930 the decree-holders filed a stamp as required by law, and the stamp was of the value of Bs. SO. That would have been sufficient if the sale had been a sale of one lot for Rs. 1755; but there had been 24 sales, and the amount of the stamps, if calculated on each sale, came to Rs. 36-15-0 and therefore there was a deficit of Rs. 6-15-0. As, in the view of the Court, the stamp was insufficient, the Court had no alternative but to set aside the sale. No steps were taken by the decree-holders to challenge that order in this Court; but on 15 may 1939, the decree-holders petitioned the lower Court and asked it to vacate its previous order under its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P.C., or to accept the stamp of Rs. 30 as sufficient for such items of property on the sale of which the stamp amounted to Rs. 30.

(3.) It is to be observed that the Court had never been asked previously to confirm the sale of such items the stamps on the sale of which would amount to Es. 30. The lower Court refused to interfere seeing no reason to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in the matter. 3. This petition for revision is directed towards the order of the learned Subordinate Judge refusing to exercise his inherent jurisdiction, and in my judgment this Court cannot interfere in the circumstances. If the decree, holders petitioners felt aggrieved with the order setting aside the sale, they could, in my view, have challenged it in this Court. It was an order passed relating to execution and was, in my view, appealable. No steps however were taken to challenge that decision. 5. In such circumstances, the learned Subordinate Judge was right in refusing to interfere even if he had inherent jurisdiction to do so, a point which I do not decide. As I have stated, he had never been asked to confirm the sale of only some of the items of property, and that being so he was perfectly right in refusing to adopt that course when the subsequent application was made to him. 6. In the circumstances of this case, I do not see that this Court can interfere in revision and accordingly this petition fails. I would therefore discharge the rule with costs, which I would assess at one gold mohur. Fazl All J. I agree. BH-1940-0133