JUDGMENT
B.K. Mullick, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the execution of two decrees for Rs. 7,161-2-0 and Rs. 1,070 obtained by the respondent Basdeo Prasad Singh against the appellant Sham Narain Singh. In execution of the former decree the properties of the judgment-debtor and his sons, who with him were members of a joint Mitakshara family were attached and sold and purchased by the decree-holder on the 15th March 1924. On the 31st March the decree-holder is alleged to have filed a petition stating that he had made a compromise with the judgment-debtor and praying that the sale should be set aside. On the 10th May 1924, the application was disallowed and the sale was confirmed. This order was made in the Execution Case No. 221 of 1923. The other execution case, namely, No. 3 of 1924 which, was for the other decree, was disposed of by transferring a sum of Rs. 237 from the sale-proceeds in Case No. 221 of 1923 to the credit of Basdeo Narain for the satisfaction of the other decree.
2. Appeal No. 118 of 1924 is preferred against the final order in Execution Case No. 221 of 1923 and Appeal No. 125 of 1924 is preferred against the final order in Execution Case No. 3 of 1924.
3. It is contended before us that the Subordinate Judge should be directed to set aside the sale in Execution Case No. 221 and his final order in Execution Case No. 3 and refund to the decree-holder the deposit made by him on account of part of the purchase-money, or, at any rate, he should be directed to make further inquiry into the question whether the decree-holder had, in fact, filed the application of the 31st March 1924. It appears that on the 2nd April 1924 the decree-holder appeared in Court and repudiated the petition that had been made on the 31st March. He said that he had not compromised with the judgment-debtor and that he had never filed any petition to set aside the sale. The learned Judge held that the C.P.C. did not authorize him to entertain any application to set aside the sale by arrangement between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and he dismissed the application. In my opinion this decision was correct. The only ground upon which a decree-holder can set aside his own sale is that the judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in the property. There is no provision in the Code for allowing adjustments between the parties after the sale has been held. The sale is a solemn act and the Court is not competent to review it merely at the request of the parties. The Subordinate Judge was, therefore, right in confirming the sale.
4. There were allegations made by the decree-holder that he had been wrongfully confined and had been coerced by the judgment-debtor Sham Narayan into signing certain documents and that the application of the 31st March had been made by some one who had falsely impersonated him (the decree-holder). The Subordinate Judge declined to go into this allegation as a criminal case was pending in regard to that matter. We understand that since then Sham Narayan after conviction by the Court of first instance has been acquitted in appeal.
5. In Appeal No. 118 of 1924 nothing further remains to be done except to affirm the Subordinate Judge’s order and to dismiss the appeal with costs.
6. In Appeal No. 125 the same result follows. The Subordinate Judge’s final order in Execution Case No. 3 of 1924 will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. There will be no separate costs in this case.
Ross, J.
7. I agree.