( 1 ) IN execution of a decree obtained by the appellant against the respondent certain property of the respondent was put to sale. On the date fixed for the sale the executing Court passed an order staying the sale. A copy of the order was taken by the respondent to the Qurq Amin conducting the saie, and it is alleged that after reading it he returned it to the respondent and proceeded to sell the property. There were bidders including the appellant, who offered Rs. 1000/- and the sale was concluded ig his, favour. More than a month after the sale was held, me respondent filed a petition in the executing Court, the petition expressly purported to be under Order 21 Rule 90, c. P. C. He contended in the petition that the sale was illegal, that no proclamation was made at all with tne result that very few bidders were present and the property worth Rs. 30,000/- was sold to the appellant for Rs. 1000/-, that only his relations and friends were present as bidders, that the sale was held in spite of the stay order issued by the Court and communicated to the qurq Amin and was consequently null and void and that the sale ought to be set aside on account of material irregularity.

( 2 ) THE executing Court treated the petition as one under Order 21 Rule 90, the period of limitation tor which is admittedly thirty days, vide Article 168 of the Limitation Act, and dismissed it on this ground. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed, by the District judge, who thought that if the objection raised a question that the sale was null and void, It was one under Section 47, C. P. C. for which the period of limitation may be three years under Article 182 of the Limitation Act. It, therefore, remanded the case to the executing Court for

"deciding the question of the Validity or the voidness of the sale and also for deciding the question whether the objection relating to the sale being void was within time". Against that remand order a second appeal was filed which was heard by our brother Mithan Lal. Our brother has referred the following three questions to a larger Bench:

"1. Whether an auction sale held in contravention of or in ignorance of the order of stay passed by the executing Court is null and void? (2) Whether an objection by a judgment-debtor agamst such a sale would be an objection under section 47 C. P. C. and if the objection is a composite one containing grounds mentioned in Order 21, Rule 90, C. P. C. , as well as the ground relating to the nullity of sale, could such an objection be treated to be one under Section 47, C. P. C. ?

(3) In either case or in both cases, what will be tne period of limitation? Will the limitation be governed by Article 166 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act or, as observed in the case of hiralal v. Mst. Champa, (S) AIR 1955 ALL 226, para 15, there is no period of limitation and the court is bound to set right the wrong at any time?"

( 3 ) QUESTION No. 1: This question is pending before the executing Court itself. The appellate court by its order in appeal has not given any finding on it. it is stated to the remand order that the case was remanded for deciding the question of validity or the voidness of the sale, Thus it Is for the executing Court to decide whether the sale was void on the grounds alleged by the respondent in his objection. Since there was no decision un the question given by the appellate court, the question did not arise before the learned single Judge and we cannot answer it. It will be for the executing court to answer it, the objection is still pending before it.

( 4 ) QUESTION No. 2: Though the objection purposed to be under Order 21 Rule 90, the contention contained in it that the sale was null and void, was a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree out not covered by Order 21 Rule 90. Only the question relating to a material irregularity in conducting the sale is a question referred to in Order 21 Rule 90; any other question wou