A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a judgment debtors appeal. The decree-holders obtained a decree against the appellant and in execution of the decree they got this 3/8th share in a house attached and put up for sale. The sale was held on the 19th January 1943. It was confirmed on the 27th April 1943 in favour of Chet Ram who had purchased the property at the auction sale. On 26th November 1949 the judgment-debtor filed an objection under Section 60 C. P. C. in which he contended that he was an agriculturist and the house sold was exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60 C. P. C. He, therefore prayed that the sale be set aside and the house be released in his favour. Besides the two decree-holders Shanti Lal and Kanti Lal, Chet Ram the auction purchaser was also impleaded as a party to this objection.

( 2 ) THE objection was opposed on behalf of the auction purchaser as well as decree-holders and one of the points raised by them was that as the objection had been filed after the sale had been confirmed it was not maintainable. This plea found favour with the executing court and it, therefore, dismissed the objection without going into the other questions raised. It is against the order dismissing the objection that the present appeal has been preferred. In this appeal, however, the judgment-debtor impleaded only the two decree-holders as respondents. He did not implead the auction purchaser.

( 3 ) THE original judgment-debtor died during the pendency of the appeal and his son has been brought on record in his place. One of the respondents Kanti Lal also died and his heirs have been impleaded in his place.

( 4 ) WHEN the appeal was called up for hearing Sri Baleshwari Prasad and Sri V. K. Gupta wanted to appear on behalf of the auction purchaser Chet Ram and to raise certain preliminary objection. They had, however, to withdraw when they discovered that Chet Ram was not a party to the appeal at all.

( 5 ) REALISING that the omission to implead Chet Ram the auction purchaser may make the appeal formally defective and affect its maintainability the appellant put in an application praying that Chet Ram be allowed to be impleaded as a respondent at this stage.

( 6 ) SO far as this application for impleading the auction purchaser at this stage is concerned I am of opinion that no good case is made out for allowing the prayer. The appeal was filed in 1952. The appellant had himself impleaded the auction purchaser in the objection which he had filed in the executing court. The auction purchaser had put in appearance and had opposed the objection. It was in his presence and on his contest as well as that of the decree-holders that the objection was dismissed. If knowing all these facts the appellant omitted to implead the auction purchaser in the appeal he has only himself to blame. He cannot be allowed to implead the auction purchaser now after more than six years have expired since the decision in favour of the auction purchaser was made and the appeal so far as he is concerned became time barred long ago. 6a. It, is, however, said that the auction purchaser was not a necessary party and it was therefore, not necessary for him to be impleaded in the appeal. It is difficult to accept the contention. It cannot be denied that as a result of the sale being confirmed in his favour the auction purchaser has now become the owner of the property sold. If he is not already in possession he is entitled to get possession. The appellant wants the sale in his favour to be set aside. If he is not a party to the case any decision about the invalidity of the sale will not be binding on him and will not affect his position or interest. The sale cannot therefore be set aside in his absence. If an order setting aside the sale is passed without the auction purchaser being made a party it would be wholly ineffective. The appellant realised the difficulty. He therefore impleaded the auction purchaser in the objection he filed. He did not say then

Click Here to Read the rest of this document