JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal by two plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It arises out of the following facts. The plaintiffs were judgment-debtors under a simple money-decree held by the defendants, in execution of which decree certain Immovable property belonging to the plaintiffs was attached. The property being ancestral, the execution of the decree was transferred to the Collector u/s 68, Civil Procedure Code. Its execution proceeded subject to the rules made by the Local Government, which are to be found in the United Provinces Gazette of 14th October 1911, Part I, page 1005. In the result, the property attached was sold at auction and purchased by the decree-holders on the 20th of March 1913. The sale was confirmed on the 25th of April 1913. On the 25th of June 1913 the judgment-debtors presented a petition to the Collector asking that the sale should be set aside. They alleged that the decree-holders had fraudulently kept them in ignorance of the pendency of the execution proceedings; also that the sale was liable to be set aside because the decree-holders had purchased without the leave of the Court, and finnlly they tendered the full amount of the decree though not the extra payment for the benefit of the auction-purchasers which is required by Rule 30 of the rules published by the Local Government. This objection was rejected by the Collector on 2nd July 1913. Against that order an appeal lay to the Commissioner under Rule 45 of the rules of the Local Government already referred to. Instead of making such an appeal the judgment-debtors filed the present suit. They set forth in substance the facts which had been put forward as the basis of their application to the Collector, and they asked for a decree for recovery of possession of the property acquired by the defendants at the auction-sale. Both the Courts below have held that this suit is barred by the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 92, Clause (3), Civil Procedure Code. They should have referred to Rule 32 of the rules published by the Local Government; but otherwise the decisions of the Courts below appear to be correct.

2. The case for the appellants was laid before us in a very careful and able argument. Reliance was placed upon the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ganga Pershad Sahu v. Gopal Singh 11 C. 136 : 11 I.A. 234 : 4 Sar. 572 also on the decisionof a single Judge of this Court in Sita Bam v. Subheda Knar 24 Ind. Cas. 695. Reference was further made to Bhaiaji Thakur v. Jharula Das 24 Ind. Cas. 501 : 12 A.L.J. 1176 : 16 M.L.T. 210 : 27 M.L.J. 100 : 1 L.W. 549 : (1914) M.W.N. 636 : 16 Bom. L.R. 845 : 20 Cri.L.J. 360 : 42 C 244 : 18 C.W.N. 1020 . These last two cases are obviously distinguishable. In the last case the suit was one for a declaration that a decree had been obtained by fraud and for consequential relief. Of course a suit will lie to get rid of a decree which has been obtained by fraud; and if the decree is found to have been vitiated by fraud, the execution proceedings become null and void and will be set aside by the Court. In the case now before us no attack is made upon the decree, but only upon the conduct of the execution proceedings. In the single Judge case the plaintiff came into Court with the allegation that property belonging to her had been sold in execution of a decree against another person, and that she had had no previous opportunity of objecting to the execution proceedings because she had been fraudulently kept in ignorance of the same. On the facts before him the learned Judge was able to find that the plaintiff in that suit was not a person against whom an order had been made under Order XXI, Rule 92, Civil Procedure Code, and consequently her suit was not barred by the 3rd Clause of that rule. With regard to the Privy Council case reported as Ganga Pershed Sahu v. Gopal Singh 11 C. 136 : 11 I.A. 234 : 4 Sar. 572 it seems sufficient to remark that the decision proseeded