Fraud vitiates judicial acts, and the Court has inherent powers to set aside an auction sale held contrary to its express orders or directions.

Padhye, J—This is a revision petition Jay the. decree-holder auction-purchaser against the appellate order confirming the order of the executing Court setting aside the auction sale held on 1-9-1944 and confirmed in the applicant's favour on 7-10-1944.

2. The few relevant facts are these. The decree obtained by the applicant against the non-applicants was transferred for executions to the Court of the Sub-Judge. Execution was sued upon and the judgment-debtors' property i.e., a 6 anna We of mouza 'Soundhal' area 409.37 acres, jama Rs. 43-2-0 was attached. The sale notices were served.

3. On 19-4-1944 the decree-holder applied that the auction sale be held at Khandwa in court-house rather than at the spot which is far away from Khandwa. The executing Court on 19-4-1944 ordered notices of this application to issue for 6-5-1944 as it was thought inadvisable--particularly in view of instructions issued in that behalf--to deviate from the ordinary rule of holding the auction sale at the spot, at least without hearing the judgment-debtors.

4. On 6-5-1944, it was found that the decree-holder failed to apply for the issue of notices as ordered by the Court and no explanation was offered at any stage for non-compliance. The executing Court therefore, in effect, rejected the decree-holder's prayer for holding the auction gale at Khandwa and ordered proclamation of sale to issue for holding the auction sale on the spot on 17-7-1944. The proclamation was accordingly prepared and was signed by the Judge. The process-server to whom it was entrusted for execution however fell and it was found on 4-7-1944 that the proclamation remained unexecuted with the process-server. The Judge therefore ordered on 4-7-1944 that proclamation and warrant of sale be issued on the same process for sale to be held on 1-9-1944.

5. In the proclamation that was actually issued, the clerk changed the date of sale and in addition he also changed the place and time of sale. According to the corrected proclamation the sale was to be held on 1-9-1944 at the court house at Khandwa at 8 P.M. These corrections are signed by the clerk himself and it appears that this corrected proclamation was never placed before the Judge and it was issued on the strength of the Judge's signature on it when it was prepared for holding the sale on spot on 17-7-1944.

6. It is alleged that the corrections as to place and time were made on the strength of the alleged order of the Court contained in the order-sheet dated 8-7-1944. This order-sheet is wholly written by the clerk himself and signed by the Judge. The decree-holder had applied for permission to bid and the order was that his bid should not be below Rs. 500.

7. The sale was accordingly held on 1-9-1944 and the decree-holder was the highest bidder; his bid was for Rs. 525. This bid list is not signed by the Judge in acceptance of the highest bid. The judgment-debtors did not put in appearance and did not object to the tile within 80 days and the sale was confirmed on 7-10-1944.

8. On 8-10-1944 the judgment-debtors put in an application purporting to be one under Sections 47 and 151 Civil P.C., to set aside the sale. They accused the decree-holder of having committed a fraud in bringing into existence collusively and fraudulently the order sheet dated 8-7-1914 and securing the signature of the Judge thereon. The decree-holder thereby fraudulently secured a change in the place of holding the sale in spite of the Judge's prior order which, in effect, rejected that prayer. The auction sale, according to the judgment-debtor, was void and wag liable to be set aside under the inherent powers of the Court. This application was hotly contested by the decree-holder auction-purchaser. The executing Court wrote a very elaborate order and set aside the auction sale and this order is confirmed in appeal. Both the Courts have treated the application as one under Section 47 read with Section 151, Civil P.C.

9. In a very careful argument, Mr. Dabir