The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 to correct its own error when its orders have not been carried out and it has been misled.

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. In this case the auction purchaser is the Appellant. He got a decree which on the date of sale amounted to Rs. 2,127 odd. The judgment-debtor was an undivided member of a joint Hindu family entitled to an undivided one-fifth share in the family property. At the request of the appellant the property which was the total property of the family was divided into two lots for sale.

2. The Court had given standing instructions that in Court sales no bid was to be finally accepted before the Court had sanctioned it. The District Munsif had also informed the Deputy Nazir, who conducted the sale, that in this sale he should not sell more than would realize the decree amount. The first lot was valued at about Rs. 940. It had a usufructuary mortgage on it for Rs. 400.

3. It was put up for sale first and the decree-holder purchased it for Rs. 950. Then the second lot was put up and he purchased this for Rs. 2,275. When the Dy. Nazir brought the papers to the Court in the evening for confirmation he told the District Munsif that the bids had fetched more than the Commissioners valuation; but he did not inform him that the bid for the second properly was enough to cover the decree amount. The District Munsif not realizing this confirmed both bids. The decree-holder paid the balance of about Rs. 1,000 due into Court on the same day and on the next day the District Munsif discovered his error. The judgment-debtor Ramaswami Chetti had died by the time of the sale and his legal representatives were his two sons, of whom one was said not to be in British India.

4. On a notice by. Court the other son appeared and said he was willing that the sales of both the lots should be set aside and at least that of lot No. 1 should be set aside. The District Munsif asked the appellant to put in a counter-petition which he did stating that the sale of both lots should be confirmed. The District Munsif under Section 151 set aside the sale of lot No. 1 and confirmed that of lot No. 2. Appellant filed an appeal to the District Judge who confirmed the order.

5. Against this he has put in an Appeal and a Civil Revision Petition to this Court. As there is a Civil Revision Petition it is immaterial whether an appeal lies; but Jackson, J., held in Akshia Pillai v. Govindarajulu Chetti AIR1924Mad778 that if a Court is approached in execution under Section 151 and passes an order of this kind there is an appeal and a second appeal, and in this very case he directed the Civil Revision Petition to be put up with the appeal.

6. The sole ground taken by the appellant is that as there was no application by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale for the irregularity, the Court had no power to do so under Section 151. He relies on the general principles stated in Panchanam Singha Roy v. Dwarka Nath Roy (1905) 3 C.L.J. 29 , Gopal Chandra Mukerji v. Notobar Kundu (1912) 15 I.C. 53, Ghuznavi v. The Allahabad Bank, Ltd. I.L.R. (1917) Cal. 929 and Joshi Shib Prakash v. Jinghuria I.L.R. (1923) All. 144 that Section 151 is only applicable where there is no remedy prescribed by the Code. Panchanam Singha Roy v. Dwarka Nath Roy (1905) 3 C.L.J. 29 does not help appellant at all. In Gopal Chandra Mukerji v. Notobar Kundu (1912) 15 I.C. 53 the order under Section 151 was upheld; in Joshi Shib Prakash v. Jinghuria I.L.R. (1923) All. 144 the party wilfully neglected to avail himself of the remedy open under the Code.

7. I think the authorities are clear that the Court can, where its orders have not been carried out, and it has been misled, correct its own error.

8. The only two cases quoted for the appellant which seem to me to bear at all on this matter are Moulvie Abdul Hye v. Macrae (1874) 23 W.R. 1 and that case seems to be really against him. There a Subordinate Judge had in execution ordered the sale of several factories in different lots. The District Judge then removed the execution proceedings to his own Cour