( 1 ) THIS is an application praying that I should recall by review my order dated 24th January 1949, allowing the revision filed by the opposite party. I have already mentioned the facts of the case in that order and they need not be repeated here.

( 2 ) THE main point argued by Mr. Walter Dutt then appearing for the auction-purchaser-opposite party, was that, in the absence of an application by the judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 90, civil P. C. , the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale. For the reasons given in the said order, I accepted this contention. The only point then argued by Mr. Gopalji Mehrotra, counsel for the judgment-debtor, was that the auction-purchaser had no right of appeal against the order of the Munsif to the learned Additional Civil Judge. No other point was argued either by the one or the other counsel, and none other is mentioned in that order. It is not suggested by the counsel for the judgment-debtor, now seeking review, that any other point was then actually argued.

( 3 ) THE present applicant, namely, the judgment-debtor, now applying for review, is represented to press this application by Mr. G. S. Pathak. He has argued a new point, viz. that the mere fact that the Amin had accepted the highest bid made by the auction-purchaser did not conclude the sale, which would have been completed only after an order in that behalf had been passed by the learned Munsif, and that no such order having admittedly beets passed, there was no sale, for the cancellation of which there could be any question of applying under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil p. C. He has also contended that the Munsif having issued general instructions to the Amins that, in case there was a disparity between the value of the property mentioned in the sale proclamation and the amount of the highest bid, they should not conclude the sale, the Amin in the present case also had no such power. He urged that my order, now sought to be reviewed, ignored these aspects. and that the same constituted an error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of Order 47 (1), Civil P. C. The position, therefore, is that fresh points by a fresh counsel have now been raised, and it is desired that, in view of these, I should set aside my order of 24th January 1949 and dismiss the revision filed by the auction-purchaser.

( 4 ) IT has been frankly conceded that the mere fact that a point was not argued in the original case and is raised for the first time in an application for review would be no ground for review, unless an error apparent on the face of the record id held to have been committed.

( 5 ) I propose to consider the points now raised under two general heads -- (1) whether there was any error in my order aforesaid at all, and (2) whether, in case there was, it was apparent on the face of the record.

( 6 ) TO take the first question first, it would be useful to refer to Rules 65 and 84 of Order 21 and also to para. 3 of the conditions of sale in Form 29, Appendix E, Civil P. C. Under Rule 65, every sale in execution of a decree has to be "conducted by an officer of the Court or by such other person as the Court may appoint in this behalf and shall be made by public auction in manner prescribed. " Rule 84 (1) lays down that "on every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent. on the amount of his purchase-money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. "

( 7 ) ON the plain reading of this rule, it would be manifest that the sale of the property, the payment of twenty-five per cent. of the purchase money and, in case of default in this behalf, the re-sale of the property shall all take place in the same continuation and as parts of the same proceeding. There is nothing to suggest here that there can be any break or inte