SATYESHWAR ROY, J.

1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 2-9-1978 passed by the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi, in Execution Case No. 29 of 1967.

2. The petitioner obtained a money decree against opposite party No. 2. She executed the decree and the same was registered as Execution Case No. 29 of 1967. In that execution case an immovable property was auction-sold and was purchased by the petitioner. Opposite party No. 1, who was not party to the decree, filed an application labelled under O.21, R.58 and S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) in which he stated that he had interest in the property and prayed for dismissing the execution case. While that was pending another application was filed by opposite party No. 1 in which he prayed for allowing some amendments in the application filed earlier by him. The petitioner filed objection to the same. By the impugned order the Court below allowed the prayer of opposite party No. 1 and directed that the application be registered as Miscellaneous case under O.XXI R.90 of the Code. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this order.

3. The case was listed before a learned single Judge who by order dated 5-3-1982 directed that the case be placed for hearing before a Division Bench. This civil revision application, therefore, was listed before this Bench.

4. When the case was taken up for hearing, Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, submitted that the only question on which the parties were heard by the Court below and which it was required to decide was whether the application filed by opposite party No. 1 could have been allowed to be amended and this civil revision application, therefore, should be confined to that only. He further submitted that the other points which the Court below decided by the impugned order were so decided on the basis of the averments made by the opposite party No. 1 in his application and the objection thereto filed by the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. He, therefore, submitted that so far the decision of the Court below on the question whether the application filed by opposite party No. 1 was barred by limitation or whether he had any interest in the property auction-sold must be left open to be decided after the Court below hears the parties on the basis of the evidence which they may choose to adduce in support of their respective cases. From the perusal of the order of the Court below it appears that application after giving findings on the concerned points, the Court below directed that the objection filed by opposite party No. 1 be registered as a Miscellaneous case and it was registered as Miscellaneous case No. 23 of 1978. It further appears that none of the parties led evidence with regard to the question of limitation. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, did not contest the statements made by Mr. N. K. Prasad. In the circumstances, on the facts and for the ends of justice, this civil revision application is confined only to that part of the order by which it allowed the amendment prayed for on behalf of the opposite party No. 1.

5. The facts which are not in dispute are that in Execution Case No. 29 of 1967 some immoveable property was auction-sold some time in the year 1969 and the auction sale was confirmed by the executing Court. On 20th of June, 1978 the opposite party filed an application labelled under O.XXI, R.58 and S.151 of the Code. The petitioner filed objection regarding its maintainability. On 8-7-1978 the opposite party No. 1 filed an application for amendment of the application filed on 20th June, 1978. An application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. On 2-9-1978 the prayer for amendment of the application filed on 20-6-1978 was allowed and that was registered as Miscellaneous Case under O.