1 was held to be the highest bidder for Rs.
1 companytested that application stating that he had , tendered the said amount immediately after the auction, that the said amount being large the Amin hesitated to accept it in cash as it was too late that day to .deposit it in the Treasury.
As regards the judgment debtor the order obviously was number a final determination as the execution proceedings were number finally companycluded.
The appellant challenged the auction sale alleging that the Amin had number realised 1/4th of the sale proceeds immediately after the said auction was closed as required by 0.21 R. 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1 filed an appeal against the said order in the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 9, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Execution First Appeal No.
410 of 1962.
2,45,000/ .
1 ,and setting aside the auction sale held it to be a nullity.
The decision in Md. Zakaria v. Kishun 1 relied on by Counsel for the appellant laid down two propositions 1 that an order under R. 66 of 0.21 was number an appealable order and 2 that the only orders which are appealable are those which determine the rights of the parties to the execution.
There was however an endorsement at the foot of that report made on September 11, 1962 in which the Amin had mentioned the fact of his having received the said amount and the receipt having been issued by him on September 10, 1962.
The Civil Judge refused to accept the case of respondent No.
The appellant thereafter filed an application under O. 21 R. 84 before the Civil Judge, Aligarh.
In pursuance of that order the Amin the auction officer held an auction sale on September 10, 1962.
The respondents .case therefore was that he offered the amount immediately, that is was numberfault of his that the Amin did number then accept it, and that it was paid in any event soon after the auction and therefore payment was in companysonance with 0.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He also alleged that the Amin wanted ,to know whether he companyld accept a cheque instead of cash and therefore took Chhotelal, his representative, along with him to the residence of the Munsif, Hathras, to take directions.
His case was that the Amin realised the said amount and deposited it in the Treasury on ,September 11, 1962.
The Civil Judge thought that the Munsifs evidence did number support the Amin as the Munsif had stated that it was only the Amin who had companye to see him.
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
1 and 2.
P. Goyal and E. C. Agarwala, for respondents Nos.
877 of 1964.
21 R. 84.
Respondent No.
An auction sale of the factory belonging to the appellant was ordered by the executing companyrt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave raises the question whether an order,by an executing Court setting aside an auction sale as a nullity is an appealable order In pursuance of a decree passed against the appellant judg ment debtor the judgment creditor took out execution proceedings.
Respondent No.
