Jagat Narayan, J.—The sole question which arises in this revision application is whether the executing court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim purporting to be under O.21, R.58(1) CPC after the execution sale has taken place, but before it is confirmed. On this question there is a conflict of judicial opinion. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore, Madhya Bharat, Patna and Rangoon have taken the view that the court has no such jurisdiction. The reasons for this view are contained in the followibng decisions:—

(1) Gopal Chandra Mukerji Vs. Notobar Kundu (15 I.C. 53), (2) Maung Po Pe Vs. Maung Kwa (AIR 1928 Rangoon 80), (3) Sasthi Charan Vs. Gopal Chandra (AIR 1937 Calcutta 390).

A contrary view was taken in the following decisions :—

(1) Jagannadham Vs. Pydayya (AIR 1931 Madras 782), (2) Mukhi Vs. Allahbux (AIR 1933 Sind 198), (3) Ram Chandra Vs. Kayam Hussain (AIR 1938 Nagpur 475), (4) Ramiah Vs. Cowdiah (AIR 1958 Mysore 140). Having fully considered the above decisions and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the latter view is preferable.

2. Clause (1) of O. 21, R. 58 makes it incumbent upon the court to proceed to investiga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document