The main legal point established is that when an application to set aside a sale is dismissed, the court must make a fresh order confirming the sale, as per Order XXI R.92 CPC.

1. The decree-holder is the revision petitioner. A decree for money was obtained by the petitioner's predecessor on 16-3-1956. The property of the judgment-debtor was sold in court-auction on 21-2-1968. On 6-3-1968 the petitioner produced the necessary amount for the stamp duty leviable on the purchase certificate. On 16-3-1968 the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order XXI R.90 CPC. to set aside the same That application was dismissed on 4-11-1969 and the sale was confirmed The judgment-debtor applied on 24-11-1969 to restore that application, but that application also was dismissed on 9-3-1970. Before this the judgement-debtor had filed an appeal against the order dated 4-11-1969 as A.S. 6 of z1970. The appellate court allowed that appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and sent back the application filed under Order XXI R.90 for fresh consideration and disposal On remand that application was posted for consideration and the executing court again dismissed the same on 7-11-1970. But no fresh order of confirmation of sale was passed. It may be noted that before the dismissal of the application Agriculturists Debt Relief Act Act 11 of 1970 came into force on 14-7-1970. That enabled the debtors whose properties have been sold but their sale not confirmed to apply to set aside the sale. The judgment-debtor availed of that provision, namely, S.20 clause (8) of the Act and filed an application on 13-1-1971 to set aside the sale. He also deposited Rs. 200/- as the first instalment. For reasons best known to the debtor that application was not pressed and so the same was dismissed on 3-11-1973. On 17-12-1973 the decree-holder auction-purchaser applied for delivery of the property. He was called upon to produce the sale certificate. Then he applied to have the sale certificate issued assuming that the sale has already been confirmed. The executing court also did not notice that after dismissing on 7-11-1970 the application under Order XXI R.90 there is no order confirming the sale. The court only ordered the auction - purchaser to produce the necessary amount to purchase the stamp paper to prepare the sale certificate. Then the decree-holder realised that there has not been a fresh order of confirmation of the sale and so he filed an application claiming two alternative reliefs. One relief is that he may be allowed to execute the decree for recovery of the decree debt over again if the sale is for any reason deemed as set aside by the filing of the application under S.20 (8) of Act 11 of 1970 by the debtor. Alternatively he contended that an order of confirmation of the sale may be passed to enable him to get the sale certificate. The lower Court has by the order under revision dismissed the same. This is challenged in this revision petition.

2. The lower court is right in not permitting the decree-holder to execute the decree over again because once the sale is held in satisfaction of the decree unless that sale is set aside the sale cannot be ignored and steps taken to execute the decree over again. The application to set aside the sale under Order XXI R.90 has been dismissed. The application filed under S.20 Clause (8) of Act 11 of 1970 has also been dismissed on 3-11-1973. Therefore the sale held on 21-2-1968 remains in force and the decree-holder is therefore not entitled to execute the decree over again.

3. But the decree-holder is entitled to get the alternate relief. It is true that the application to set aside the sale filed under Order XXI R.90 was at the first instance dismissed on 4 -11-1969 and the sale was confirmed by a separate order passed on the same day. But the order passed on the application to set aside the sale was reversed in Appeal A S 6 of 1970 and the case sent back for re-consideration of that application. With this the order confirming the sale automatically ceases to have any effect. When for the second time the application to set aside the sale was dismissed on 7-11-1970 the