MEDA CHINNA SUBBAMMA Vs. PAPIREDDIGARI CHENNAYYA MINOR BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM NAGA PEDDAYYA (LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot, in terms apply as no decree was varied or reversed but only an order under Order XXI, Rule 90, refusing to set aside a sale in execution, was reversed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) Assuming that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows an order for restitution in appropriate cases even though it does not fall under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such an order cannot be made on the analogy of Section 144 unless the auction- purchaser was a party before the Appellate Court which set aside the sale in the proceedings instituted for setting it aside.

(3.) The mere fact that the decree-holder was a party to those proceedings will not suffice as the Court auction-purchaser is not the representative of the decree-holder. Manicka Udayan v. Rajagopala Pillai (1907) I.L.R., 30 Mad., 507 which held otherwise has been disapproved of in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai (1911) I.L.R., 34 Mad., 417 to both of which decisions the present learned Chief Justice was a party.