FATEH LAL Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision arises out of certain execution proceedings. A suit was decreed and under the judgment there ought to have been an instalment decree passed against the defendant. Owing to some mistake of the office the decree which was prepared did not specifically mention that the money was payable in instalments. An application for execution of that decree was put in by the decree- holder within one year of the decree and accordingly no notice of it was issued the judgment-debtor. Among the properties sought to be attached was a Revenue Court decree in favour of the judgment-debtor. It appears from the deposition of the judgment-debtor subsequently made and the record that notices were issued to the Revenue Court requesting it to abstain from executing the decree sought to be attached until such notice was cancelled, and a notice was also sent to the judgment-debtor prohibiting him from transferring or charging the same in any way. Apparently these notices were issued under Order 21, Rule 53, Sub-clause IV. The judgment-debtor took no steps in the matter and kept quiet. Ultimately the Revenue Court decree was put up at auction and sold and purchased by the applicant Fateh Lal for a much smaller sum.

(2.) It may be noted that by the time the Revenue Court decree was actually put up for sale one of the two instalments had actually fallen due and the amount so due was more than the amount for which the decree was actually sold. But till then she decree as it stood did not contain any direction as to the payment of the decretal amount in instalments. Subsequently the judgment-debtor put in an application before the Subordinate Judge for an amendment of the decree so as to bring it in accordance with the judgment. That decree was then rightly amended. After having amended the decree the learned Subordinate Judge at the instance of the judgment-debtor set aside the sale of the Revenue Court decree and the only ground mentioned by him was that inasmuch as the original decree had been amended the sale of the attached decree had become ipso facto nullified. From that order the auction-purchaser appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Speaking personally for myself, I would hold that no revision lies from the order of the District Judge. On an appeal preferred by the present applicant himself he had jurisdiction to go into the question whether the first Court's order was right or wrong and after having considered the matter he has expressed his opinion one way. I cannot hold that in expressing this opinion and upholding the order of the Court below he has acted with any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction. His opinion may or may not be correct. That is after all-merely an error of law.