P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.

(1) THE principal question which Gajendragadhar J. which this appeal by special leave raises for our decision is: Whether the provisions of s. 21, r. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to a sale held by a receiver appointed by the court and authorized to sell the property in question. The learned Single Judge on the Original Side of the Calcutta High court as well as the division bench of the, said High court have answered this question in the negative. The appellants contend that the view taken by the Calcutta High court is erroneous.

(2) THIS question arises in this way. In Suit No. 1024 of 1953 on the Original Side of the Calcutta High court a decree for the payment of Rs. 18,497-15-0 was passed by consent in favour of the New Bheerbhum Coal Co. Ltd., (hereinafter called respondent 1) and against the Benares Ice Factory, Ltd., (hereinafter called appellant 2) on 5/12/1955. The decree provided for the payment of the decretal amount by six equal instalments and it directed that in case of default of any one of the instalments the balance of the decretal dues would at once become payable. A first charge was created by the dec