NANHU PRASAD SINGH Vs. NANDAN MISSIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in revision arise out of two cases in which opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 obtained two rent decrees against opposite party No. 1, and in execution of these decrees sold two holdings. The applicant is the auction- purchaser. Opposite party No. 1 applied to set aside the sale of the holdings and deposited in Court Rs. 59-3-9 in one case and Rs. 32-5-0 in the other case for payment of the decretal amount and compensation. In one case the deposit was short by Rs. 9 and in the other by Rupees 1-10-0. For this reason the deposits were refused and the sales were confirmed.

(2.) Subsequently opposite party No. 1 applied to set aside the sales. This was after the expiry of the period of limitation. But it is contended that the reason why there had been a deficit in the deposit is that opposite party No. 1 had been misled by the action of an officer of the Court. The Court below has found that opposite party No. 1 was in fact misled by the sheristadar. Accordingly the applications to set aside the sales were allowed on condition of the applicant paying Rs. 10 in each case. Against that order the auction-purchaser has moved this Court and it is contended on his behalf that the order of the Court below is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it was not the duty of the sheristadar to inform the judgment-debtor of the amount to be deposited for the purpose of having the sales set aside.

(3.) In Dildar Ali V/s. Kusum Kumari AIR 1924 Pat 256, and Gopinath Tewari v. Hiraman Bibi AIR 1933 Pat 515, following the decision in Rangini Sundari V/s. Hiralal Biswas , it has been held where a deposit made for the purpose of setting aside a sale is short by a small amount due to the applicant being misled by the officer whose duty it is to check the deposit such an act is not a casual act of an officer of the Court and that if a party is misled by the act, the Court should set the matter right.