Judgement

Appeal (No. 94 of 1928) by special leave from an order of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces (December 17, 1926), affirming an order of the District Judge of Hoshangabad, who had reversed an order of the Subordinate Judge.

The appeal raised a question of procedure with regard to sales in execution. That question in effect was whether the Court having rejected an application by the judgment-debtor to set aside a sale under Order xxi., r. 90 (1.), on the ground of material irregularity, could entertain an application by the judgment-creditor to set aside the sale, on the ground that the decree had been satisfied by an arrangement since made with the judgment-debtor, without the procedure prescribed by

r. 89 being followed.

The facts of the case, the material provisions of Order xxi., and the grounds of the decision in the present case, all appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1930. Nov. 27. Dunne K.C. and Dube for the appellants. The only method of procedure where, apart from irregularity and fraud, it is desired to set aside a sale is that prescribed by Order xxi., r. 89. The deposit provided for in that rule is an essential part of th