2 A.I.R. 1938 Nagpur 525.
A.I.R. 1941 Madras 399.
Hence this appeal.
The District Judge was number aware of the order of the High Court number did it appear which order was made first in point of time on February 22.
On an application to execute the decree, a warrant for the attachment of a house belonging to the judgment debtor was issued on May 10, 1961.
The plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant for Rs.
An appeal under cl.
At the sale which took place, the appellant before us be,came the highest bidder for Rs.
On August 31, 1963 the executing companyrt over ruled the objection of the judgment debtor and made an order under O.XXI, r. 92 companyfirming the sale.
On the 2nd of January 1962, the judgment debtor made an application to have the ex parte decree set aside.
On November 3, 1962 the auction purchaser made an application for revival of the execution proceedings and for companyfirmation of the sale under O.XXI, r. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The petitioner applied to the High Court in revision under s. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the District Judge had refused to exercise the authority vested in him to restore the petitioner to possession under the order of the High Court and on the ground that the companyfirma tion was made without jurisdiction.
A.I.R. 1933 Mad.
25,000/ had been auctioned for Rs.
He also presented an appeal against the order as a question between the decree holder and petitioner, parties to the suit, relating to execution.
The objection and the claim were disallowed by the District Judge by order dated August 20, 1883.
On October 26, 1962 the ex parte decree against the defendant judgment debtor was set aside.
This was affirmed by the first ,appellate companyrt.
On the death of the defendant, his son was made a party to the suit as a representative of his father and when the son died, the grandson was made a party to the suit as representative of his grandfather.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 24,.
1965, of the Punjab High Court in L.P. Appeal No.
519/ .
On November 7, 1962 the judgment debtor filed an objection thereto companytending that the application for revival of execution proceedings was number maintainable after setting aside the ex parte decree and that the auction purchaser was in companyspiracy and companylusion with the decree holder and as such number entitled to have the sale companyfirmed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant appeared in person.
By an order dated April 19, 1962, the executing companyrt stayed the execution of the decree till the disposal of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.
The highest bidder was a stranger to the suit who had paid the purchase money I.L. R. 9 Madras 130.
5,617/12/0.
5,000/ only and that the sale had number been companyducted in a proper manner inasmuch as there was number due publication of it and the sale too was number held at the proper hour.
1322 N of 1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the Punjab High Court dated December 24, 1965 on a certificate granted by the said companyrt.
The question involved in this appeal is, whether a sale of immovable property in execution of a money decree ought to be companyfirmed when it is found that the ex parts decree which was put into execution has been set aside subsequently.
10 of the Letters Patent in the Punjab High Court met the same fate.
20 of 1965.
and was a bona fide purchaser.
On December 5, 1883, the petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court against that order and the High Court on February 22, 1884 reversed the order of the District Judge.
In 1883 the decree holder attached certain lands and the grandson the petitioner before the High Court, filed an objection to the attachment claiming the property as his own.
D. Sharma and M. C. Bhatia, for respondent No.
In the meantime the lands attached were put up for sale and were purchased on February 22, 1884 the same day as the High Court allowed the order disallowing the petitioners claim.
In Subbayya v. Yellamma 1 which was decided in the year 1885 the suit having been instituted in 1876, the facts were as follows.
It is to be numbered here that the case of companylusion was number substantiated.
5,100/ on December 16, 1961.
On January 20, 1962 he filed an objection petition against the sale of the house on the ground that the house which was valued at Rs.
The facts are simple.
One Swaran Singh obtained an ex parte decree on February 27, 1961 against Gurdial Singh for Rs.
