PROBODH CHANDRA BASU Vs. KUNJA LAL GHOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to understand the arguments which have been made at the hearing of this Rule the following facts require to be noted. The Receiver of the petitioner's estate brought a suit against the opposite party No. 4. A decree was passed on compromise. In the meantime the Receiver was discharged and the petitioner started execution proceedings. In the course of those proceedings the property was purchased by the petitioner on July 24, 1933. On August 23, 1933, an application was made by the opposite parties Nos. 1-3 under the provisions of Section 174(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Their contention was that their interest was affected by the sale inasmuch as they had attached the property in execution of a money decree obtained by them against opposite party No. 4. The learned Judge demanded a deposit in terms of Section 174(3)(b). Opposite parties Nos. 1-3 then applied to this Court and the order was set aside on the ground that it was premature. The application was then heard on the merits, the sale was set aside and the petitioner appealed to the District Court without, success.

(2.) It is now contented that the order setting aside the sale ought to be set aside inasmuch as no deposit was made and the Judge did not record any reason for considering it unnecessary Sub-section (6) is in these terms: No application by a judgment-debtor or any person whose interests are affected by the sale under this sub-section shall be allowed unless the applicant either deposits the amount recoverable from him in execution of the decree or satisfies the Court, for reason to be recorded by it in writing, that no such deposit is necessary.

(3.) It is admitted that these terms were not complied with. But it has been argued on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1-3 that this is a mere irregularity which does not justify an interference by this Court under the previsions of Section 115 of the Code (of Civil Procedure.