JUDGMENT
Sunanda Bhandare, J.
(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 12th July 1985 in Execution Case No. 182/72. The land measuring 2016 sq. yards situated in Khasra No. 739, Khasra No. 341/1293. Village Tughlakabad, Badarpur Mehrauli Road, New Delhi was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction held on 12th March 1979 for a sum of Rs. 7.200.00 . The auction was held pursuant to the directions of the court in execution of a decree against respondent no. 2, the judgment debtor. Respondent no. 1 is the decree holder. Against the said sale by public auction objections were filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 Civil Procedure Code . On the objections of the judgment debtor respondent no. 2 the following issue was framed by the executing court :
1. Whether the auction of the property in question is liable to be set aside ? Opd
2.Relief.
(2) The parties were asked to file the list of witnesses and to lead evidence. However, before the parties could lead evidence the judgment debtor paid the decretal amount to the decree holder and on a statement being made by the judgment debtor before the Sub Judge that the decretal amount has been paid the Sub Judge by the impugned order set aside the sale as satisfied and for want of proper prosecution. Learned Sub Judge further directed that the auction purchaser be refunded the amount deposited by him towards the auction price and further cancelled the attachment and revoked the sale.
(3) The short question for determination in this revision petition is whether the sale could be set aside after 7 years of the auction on the ground that the decree stood satisfied because the judgment debtor had paid the decretal amount to the decree holder.
(4) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court had erred in dismissing the objections of the auction purchaser holding that “objections of the auction purchaser are dismissed for want of proper prosecution.” It was submitted that the objections were filed by the judgment debtor and not by the auction purchaser and, therefore, there was no question of the objections of the auction purchaser being dismissed for want of proper prosecution. It was further submitted that the sale could not have been set aside on the ground that it was satisfied and it was imperative for the trial court to first decided the objections filed by the judgment debtor under Order 20 Rule 90.
(5) It was contended by the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that once the decree was satisfied the sale could not have been confirmed by the trial court under Order 20 Rule 92 and thus there was no error committed in revoking the sale.
(6) The auction sale was effected on 2nd March 1979. On perusal of the record I find that there is nothing to indicate that the decree holder was paid the decretal amount prior to the date the sale was effected and even if it was it would be open to the judgment debtor to file an application under Order 21 Rule 2 of the C P.C. In fact the decree holder, respondent no. 1 herein, has filed a reply to the objections of the judgment debtor and stated that the decretal amount is not paid, In my view, therefore, there is substantial force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the sale in execution is effected the court cannot refuse to confirm the sale on the ground that the judgment debtor has paid the decretal amount to the decree holder. Once the interest of auction purchaser who is a third party intervenes the same cannot be disregarded on the ground that the decree has been satisfied out of court between the decree holder and the judgment debtor. If no application is made under Order 21 Rules 89. 90 and 91 or when such an application is made and disallowed the court is bound to confirm the sale under Order 20 Rule 92. It was. therefore, imperative for the court to first decide the objections of the judgment debtor and if the objections were disallowed the sale ought to be confirmed and if upheld the sale can be set aside. Moreover the trial court was also wrong in cancelling the attachment and revoking the sale in a slip short manner by holding that “the objections of the auction purchaser are dismissed for want of proper prosecution.” While confirming the sale under Order 21 Rule 92 it is not even necessary for any party to make an application for confirmation of the sale. The petitioner was the auction purchaser and he had not filed any objections to the sale under Order 2 Rule 91 and therefore there could be no want of proper prosecution of the objections by the petitioner auction purchaser.
(7) In the result the petition allowed. The order of Sub Judge, Delhi dated 12th July 1985 is set aside. The case is sent back to the trial court to decide the objections filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 in accordance with law. No costs.