Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. One Bhajori mortgaged his agricultural land on 6.7.1967 in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this writ petition i.e. Nawab Singh and Mahendra Singh. Subsequently, Bhajori transferred the mortgaged property (mortgagor’s right) in favour of petitioner on 10.7.1967. As mortgage money was not paid hence respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed Original suit No. 115 of 1970 for recovery of money. The suit was decreed on 28.1.1971. Thereafter, execution application was filed which was registered as execution case No. 35 of 1971. In the said execution mortgaged property was sold on 8.5.1972 and respondent No. 3 himself purchased the property as he was the highest bidder.

3. At this juncture it may be mentioned that under Order 21 Rule 72 C.P.C. decree holder was not permitted to bid for or purchase the property in execution. However, through Allahabad amendment of 24.7.1926 the prohibition was deleted. Thereafter C.P.C. was amended in 1976. The Supreme Court held that the amendment made by the Allahabad High Court being repugnant to the main C.P.C. was no more enforceable. However, in the instant case property had been purchased in 1972 by one of the decree holders and at that time there was no prohibition.

4. Petitioner filed objections against auction sale under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 40 of 1972. The said case was rejected on 30.4.1974. Against the said order petitioner filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 188 of 1974 which was dismissed on 23.9.1982 by XIIth Additional District Judge, Agra. Certified copy of the said judgment has been annexed alongwith Supplementary affidavit filed on 4.2.2011 by the respondent. In the appeal stay order had been granted. However, there is some dispute between the parties regarding continuance of stay order till the decision of the appeal or its communication to the Executing Court. During pendency of appeal, Executing Court/IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Agra passed an order on 1.3.1982, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The order is to the effect that:

“Seen report of office 74-C. There is no stay of execution proceedings. Defendant to pay poundage money within 15 days.”

Before the last sentence of the above order there was another sentence to the following effect:

“Sale is confirmed. Sale dated 8.5.1972 is confirmed. Execution application struck off in full satisfaction.”

However, this sentence was afterwards scored off. Annexure-1 to the writ petition contains another order of 12.4.1982 to the effect that:

“Stay order received from XII Additional District Judge. Let proceeding be stayed till 26.4.1982. Put up after 26.4.1982.”

5. Thereafter on 7.10.1982 i.e. after two weeks from the date of dismissal of appeal directed against order of the Executing Court rejecting petitioner’s objection under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C., petitioner filed an application under Order 34 Rule 5 C.P.C. before the executing Court for depositing the entire money. Tender was passed on the same date and an amount of Rs. 21,984.70 was deposited on the same date. It appears that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- had already been deposited (apart from Rs. 21,984.70). The executing Court on 13.7.1990 passed order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition to the effect that as sale had already been confirmed on 1.3.1982 hence application of the petitioner under Order 34 Rule 5 C.P.C. was not maintainable. Against the said order petitioner filed revision which was dismissed on 30.7.1990. Copy of the said judgment is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Through this writ petition the orders passed by the revisional Court dated 30.7.1990 and order passed by the Executing Court dated 13.7.1990 have been challenged.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-6 to the writ petition which was an application by decree holder auction purchaser Nawab Singh—respondent No.