RAMANAND LAL Vs. BARHAMDUTT MISSIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one Ramanand Lal who claimed to deposit the amount of a certain decree under Order 21, Rule 89 in order to get an execution sale set aside.

(2.) His case was that Mukhan Ojha and Lachha Ojha, the judgment-debtors in a certain suit called Eent Suit No. 15 of 1928 which was indirectly under execution, in accordance with the compromise in an ejectment suit, (which compromise is now under execution) were his farzidars. The learned Munsif disallowed the application on the ground that the applicant's interest cannot by any stretch of imagination be "affected by the execution sale." On behalf of the decree-holder, it was said in the lower Court that the applicant's claim was correct and that he had a one-third interest in the property for which Mukhan and Lachha were recorded in the landlord's sherista. The learned Munsif found it difficult on the affidavits before him to arrive at a definite finding on the point whether the applicant was a co- sharer in the holding or was a man of the decree-holder s, and for the reasons already indicated he held that the point was immaterial. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the wording of Order 21, Rule 89 entitles him to make the deposit, which has been disallowed by the trial Court, and that this is a question of jurisdiction.

(3.) The application is resisted by the auction-purchaser, on whose behalf it has been contended in the first place that no revision lies in the present case because orders under Order 21, Rule 92 are appealable; but no order under Order 21, Rule 92 was apparently passed at the time the applicant came up to this Court in revision. His application under Order 21, Rule 89 had undoubtedly been disallowed, but the order under Rule 92 confirming the sale could not be passed at the same time if only because 30 days had not yet passed from the date of the execution sale, and this Court stayed further proceedings.