SM. SARJOOBAI Vs. DEEPCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is against an order of the District Judge, Hoshangabad, by which he set aside the sale of a property in execution of a decree. The property which are certain fields was sold in execution of a decree and the applicant purchased it for Rs. 1904. The judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside the sale on allegations of certain irregularities in the proclamation and conduct of sale. The first Court found that no irregularities were proved and since all the objections urged could have been raised before the sale, the sale could not be set aside on those grounds in view of the amendment to Order 21, Rule 90 made by this High Court. The amendment referred to is an addition of a proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 90 and runs thus: Provided also that no such application for setting aside the sale shall be entertained upon any ground which could have but was not put forward by the applicant before the commencement of the sale.

(2.) ON appeal the learned District Judge was also of the opinion that the sale could not be set aside on any of the grounds urged in the application. He, however, noticed that in the duplicate of the proclamation of sale which was in the record of the execution proceedings the date of sale was entered as 29th October 1944 in the body of the proclamation while at the top it was mentioned as 26th October 1944 which was the date on which sale was actually held. In view of this discrepancy which he noticed he set aside the sale.

(3.) THE law on the point is clear that if the Court fails to find material irregularity in publishing or conducting a sale as alleged in the application it cannot set aside the sale upon other grounds not pleaded by the applicant: Harbans Lal v. Kundan Lal 21 ALL. 140. In Gopichand v. Benarsi Das A.I.R. (6) 1919 Lah. 260 also it has been pointed out that an execution Court should not consider objections other than those expressly stated in the application presented to it under Order 21, Rule 90. A fortiori objections not so taken cannot be considered by an appellate Court when hearing an appeal from the order of the Court rejecting an application to set aside a sale.