ORDER

Thomas, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is by a decree-holder whose efforts to execute the decree have now been stalled at the instance of a third party who claims to be the transferee of the interest of the decree-holder in the decree "by operation of law". The application filed by the said third party who is first responent herein) purportedly under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") though repelled by the execution Court was allowed by the High Court as per the order challenged in this appeal.

3. More facts: Appellant Gangabai leased out a portion of her land (in Nazul plot No.2, sheet No. 15/B of Murtizapur Municipality) to one Ram Pratab Agrawal (predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 5). A civil suit was filed by the appellant in 1970 for recovery of possession of the land from the lessee that suit was decreed by the trial Court and in appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 the suit was compromised pursuant to which acorn-promise decree was passed. As per the terms of the compromise decree the judgment-debtors (respondents Nos. 2 to 5) were to vacate the premises by 31-12-1990. As they failed to vacate within the said time timit the appellant took out execution proceedings.

4. What happened in the meanwhile is the cause for this appeal. Murti/apur Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Council) attached the right of the appellant in the very same property for arrears of municipal tax claimed from the appellant. The Municipal Council put the property to public auction. Appellant then filed a civil suit for injunction against the Municipal Council from proceeding with the sale on a contention that the tax arrears against the Municipal Council were not really due from her. On an application filed by the appellant in the suit under Order 39 Rule I of the Code an order was passed on 24-2-1984 dismissing the application with the following observations:

"I may observe that the sale of the buildings of the plaintiff might be held by the defendant but it should not be confirmed before 16 days after the sale. It before expiry of this period the plaintitT furnishes a security before this Court to the extent of the amount due against her, then the sale be not confirmed for one month more. If within the period of such one month the plaintiff deposits the entire amount in the Court, the sale will be cancelled. If the said amount is not deposited, then the sale may be confirmed, with these observations I dismiss the application."

5. Municipal Council (hereupon conducted the public sale on 27-2-1984 in which the present first respondent - Fulchand was the highest bidder. He deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on the same day. However, appellant deposited an a mount ofRs. 50,000/- in Court on 12-3-1984 which is more than the arrears of tax amount claimed by the Municipal Council, Normally, by operation of the order dated 24-2-1984 of the Civil Court the sale should have remained cancelled by the aforesaid deposit. But the scope for dispute arose between the appellant and the first respondent on account of what happened subsequent thereto. Appellant filed an application for cancellation of sale which was dismissed by the Courl with the observation that it is open to him to file afresh suit for that purpose. Though the appellant filed a fresh suit the same was dismissed for default on 7-11-1990.

6. First respondent deposited balance of the bid amount i.e. 3/4th of the bid amount, with the Municipal Council, on 9-11- 1990. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council hereupon issued a Sale Certificate in favour of first respondent. It was on the strength of the said Sale Certificate that first respondent moved the present application under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code.

7. Execution Court took the view that the Sale-Certificate issued by the Municipal Council was not in accordance with law and hence first respondent cannot be substituted as transferee of the decree-holder. But a