MAHADU TUKARAM SATAV Vs. PATLU SADU SATAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a decree obtained by opponent No. 3 against opponents Nos. 1 and 2, the property in suit was sold by the Collector on January 16, 1926, to the applicant. The judgment-debtor on January 25 deposited into Court the decretal amount with five per cent, of the purchase money under Order XXI, Rule 89, and on the same day an application, Exhibit 22, was made to the Mamlatdar stating that the amount of Rs. 519-12-0 was deposited into Court and praying that the auction should not be sanctioned. On March 22, 1926, the judgment-debtor applied to the Court to set aside the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the application made to the Mamlatdar was really an application for setting aside the sale which ought to have been sent for disposal to the Court, and that the application made to the Court was a continuation of Exhibit 2 J before the Mamlatdar.

(2.) On appeal, the learned District Judge held that, in view of the deposit of the decretal amount on January 25, the application to the Mamlatdar was practically an application for setting aside the sale and the application to the Court of March 22 might be treated as a continuation of the application to the Mamlatdar.

(3.) On behalf of the auction purchaser it is contended in this revisional application that the conditions prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 89, were not satisfied, that an application to set aside the sale was, in fact, not made to the Court and therefore under Order XXI, Rule 92, the Court ought to have made the order confirming the sale and ought to have held that the sale was absolute.