SHEIKH ARIATULLAH Vs. SASHI BHUSAN HAZRAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of proceedings for setting aside two sales held in execution of two decrees for rent on the ground that the sales were illegal.

(2.) It appears that in two rent suits brought in the year 1912 the plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 22 and Rs. 18 respectively, those being the rents entered in the settlement proceedings. The defendants pleaded that the rents were Rs. 12 9-0 and Rs. 11 only. The suits were decreed on the 18th February 1913 on the following terms: Toe suits be decreed with costs, but the plaintiff will be at liberty to execute the decree to the extent based on the Jama admitted in the defence after one month. As regards the balance of the decretal sums, the plaintiff will execute them as soon as the review be rejected, if the review be granted, the plaintiff should postpone execution of the balanses for two years and nine months or earlier when the settlement suits are disposed of." As a matter of fact there was no application for review pending at that time, and the order was based on a mistake of foot. The decree-holder on the 12th April 1913 took out execution for the full amounts. On the 16th May the judgment debtor applied for review of judgment stating that no application for review was pending when the decree was passed, and applied for postponement of the safe pending the disposal of the application for review. The sale was postponed till the 16th June if the decretal amounts were deposited by that date, and again postponed till the 23rd June 1913, but the money not being deposited the sale took place on that date. The judgment debtor on the 21st July 1913 applied to have the sales set aside on deposit of the decretal amounts. The amounts to be deposited were settled by the Court, and they were deposited on the 24nd July, aid the sales were set aside on the 31st July. The decree holder appealed against the said order, and the Appellate Court remanded the cases on the 4th June 1914 for re-settlement of the decretal amounts. As a result of the resettlement the orders setting aside the sales were confirmed. The decree- bolder again appealed, but the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Court of first instance setting aside the sales. The decree-holder moved this Court, and this Court on the 3rd April 1917 set aside the order setting aside the sales, on the ground that the amounts mentioned in the sale proclamation had not been deposited.

(3.) In the meantime the application for review made on the 16th May 1913 was allowed on the 18th November 1913, and the following order was passed: This is an application for review. The ground is that there is a palpable error in the judgment. In the order portion of the judgment it is stated that the plaintiff will execute them (the decrees) as soon as the review he rejected. But I am informed by the Pleader on both sides that at the time the judgment was delivered or at any time no review regarding any suit concerning the Jamas in dispute was pending. The review was with regard to other Jamas in dispute in a number of analogous suits. With regard to the disputed Jamas a title suit was pending and is still pending between the parties. The reference to the review is evidently a mistake and on this ground a review may be granted. Evidently what the Court meant is that the parties should wait till the suits are disposed of or for a reasonable time. Ordered that the application be allowed but without costs. In the order portion of the judgment instead of the words as regards the balance of the decretal sums etc., the following words, will be substituted in the judgment and the decree: As regards the balance of the decretal sums plaintiff will execute them as soon as the appeal be disposed of or within two years and six months if the appeal be disposed of earlier, and it is further ordered that the decree of the appeal will govern these cases. "