SURENDRA NATH DAS Vs. ALAUDDIN MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The rule arises out of an application made by the auction purchaser who is the opposite party to the rule under Order 21, Rule 91, Civil P.C., to set aside a sale on the ground that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold. The case made by the opposite party is that the property purchased by him was wrongly described in the sale proclamation. The wrong description is said to have consisted in (1) overstatement of the area: (ii) mention of the existence of a pucca privy on the land which really does not exist. It is said that if the auction-purchaser had not been misled in these two particulars he would not have purchased the property in question.

(2.) The Munsiff dismissed the application being of opinion that Order 21, Rule 91 of the Code has no application to the present case and that the remedy of the purchaser was by a suit.

(3.) An appeal was taken against this order to the District Judge of 21 Pargannas.