B NARAIN PAL SINGH Vs. RUDRA BHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court confirming an order of the first Court setting aside an auction sale. The application under Order 21, Rule 90 was not made by the decree-holder, judgment-debtor or the auction purchaser; but was made by two persons Rudra Bhan Singh and Baij Nath Singh who claimed to be the other decree-holders. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there had not been a proper proclamation of the sale and that in consequence the property which was worth about Rs. 15,000 was sold for Rs. 4,000 only. Being satisfied that there had been substantial loss incurred on account of the irregularity they have set aside the sale.

(2.) The applicant who is the auction-purchaser applies for a revision of the order passed by the Courts below on the ground that the Courts had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale except on an application made by some one who came within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. and that the applicants did not come within the rule.

(3.) Under Order 21, Rule 90, the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to sat aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. It was held in the case of Ravinandan Prasad V/s. Jagarnath Sahu that the expression "whose interests are affected by the sale" does not necessarily mean "whose interest in the immovable property put up for sale is affected by the sale" and the Calcutta High Court appears to have come round to the same view that the words are of a wider scope: vide the case of Dhirendra Nath Roy V/s. Kamini Kumar Pal .