JUDGMENT

S.N. Dwivedi, J. - This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors. Facts giving rise to the appeal are these :

The first respondent is the decree-holder. She applied for the execution of her decree by attachment and sale of certain agricultural plots belonging to the judgment debtors. The application for execution was made as far back as September 1962. But the execution proceedings proceeded with a snail's pace; and ultimately on March 28, 1968, the plots were auctioned by the Amin. The auction took place in the village where the plots were situated. The Amin divided the plots in three lots. Each lot was separately auction-sold by him. One of the lots was purchased by the second respondent. He is a stranger auction-purchaser. His bid was the highest. It was for Rs. 65,000/-. The Amin accepted his bid. Thereupon he deposited 25 per cent of the auction money with the Amin. The other two lots were auction-sold to the decree-holder. Her bid was the highest for these lots. The Amin accepted a letter by her Mukhtaram for setting off the decretal amount against the auction money.

2. The appellants filed an objection to the sale of the three lots. The objection was under Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. It was filed on April 29, 1968. The respondents took exception to the objection on the ground of limitation. They said that the objection was filed more than 30 days after the date of the auction sale on March 28. The execution court heard the parties on the issue of limitation. The court held that the objection of the appellants was time-barred. Accordingly it was rejected.

3. Limitation for filing an objection under Rule 90 of Order 21 is now prescribed by Article 127, Limitation Act. The limitation is 30 days "from the date of sale." The word "sale" is not defined in the Act. There should be no dispute that it will receive the same meaning which it bears in the inter-related provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. So it is necessary to ascertain the meaning of this word in those provisions of the Code. Counsel for the appellants says that there is a sale when the execution court accepts the bid of the highest bidder; counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, says that there is a sale when the Sale Officer, be he an Amin or anybody else, accepts the highest bid. Both counsel have referred us to certain decisions on this controversy. Some of them support counsel for the appellant; the others, counsel for the respondents. We shall refer to them after examining the relevant provisions of the Code.

4. Section 51 provides various modes for execution of a decree. One of the modes is attachment and sale, or sale without attachment of any property. Section 65 proides that where an immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold. In Order 21, Rules 64 to 94 deal with the ale of property in execution of decree. Rule 64 says that. any court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale shall be sold. Rule 65 provides that save as otherwise prescribed, every sale in execution of a decree shall 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 a public auction in the manner prescribed. Rule 66 provides for the drawing of a proclamation of sale "" by public auction. Form no. 29 in Appendix E to the First Schedule of the Code is the prescribed form for proclamation of sale. The prescribed form contains several conditions of sale. Condition no. 3 has been deployed by counsel for the appellants in his support. It reads: "The highest bidder shall be declared to be the purchaser of any lot, provided always that he is legally qualified to bid, and provided that it shall be in the discretion of the court or officer holding the sale to decline acceptance of the highest bid when the price offe