JUDGMENT

Anmond, J C - In this case Mt. Durani Bibi, who held a decree against Mohd. Ramzan and others on a mortgage, brought the property to sale on dates between 21st and 25th September. Three properties were sold, a shop (a), a house (b) and a second house (c). Haji Ghulam Shah bid Rs. 80 for the shop and rupees 240 for house (b). Mehrdil bid Rs. 200 for house (c). They both refused to deposit 25 per cent, of their bids, but the bailiff executing the sale instead of forthwith holding another auction as he was required to do under Order 21, Rule 84 reported the result of the sale proceedings to the Court recommending as regards house (b) that the bid of the decree-holder which was the second highest bid should be accepted. As the bailiff had failed to carry out his duties the Court ordered a resale, and on the dates between 19th and 21st October 1942 the shop was knocked down to the decree-holder for Rs. 100, houses (b) and (c) to Haji Ghulam Shah for Rs. 110 and Rs. 51, respectively. Thereafter, the decree-holder applied under Order 21, Rule 71 for the recovery of the deficiencies amounting to Rs. 180 and Rs. 149 on the two houses from Haji Ghulam Shah and ' Mehrdil respectively. On 16th December 1942, an ex parte order for the recovery was made and on the same date a warrant for the arrest of the auction purchasers was issued. Later on the same date, a telegram was received by the Court executing the sale that the auction purchasers had not been able to reach the Court on account of floods. They, therefore, applied on 19th January 1943 for a review of the Court's order, and eventually on 4th March 1943 the Court reviewed its order and held that as the re-sale had not taken place forthwith as required by Order 21, Rule 84 the auction purchasers could not be responsible for the deficiencies.

2. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge against this order and was dismissed. No order was made as regards costs.

3. The decree-holder has applied for revision of the order of the Courts below and he contends that Order 21, Rule 71, Civil P.C., applies to deficiencies caused by the act of the defaulting purchaser arising from re-sales in whatever circumstances they take place, and in this connexion he relies upon a judgment of a Judge of the Allahabad High Court reported in Prag Das v. Beni Prasad Jaggu Lal . He has also cited Sitaram v. Janaki Ram A.I.R. 1922 All. 200 which formed the basis of Prag Das v. Beni Prasad Jaggu Lal and Sivasubramaniam Chettiar v. Murugesa Mudaliar A.I.R. 1940 Mad. 566. The latter two cases, however, do not bear directly on the point in issue, although there are obiter remarks in Sitaram v. Janaki Ram A.I.R. 1922 All. 200 supporting the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the respondents auction purchasers, on the other hand, relies upon Hari Singh v. Sanwan Mal Gopi Chand A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 744 and Angnu v. Mahomed Sajjad Ali Khan , which were referred to in the Allahabad judgment and dissented from.

4. The circumstances of the Lahore case were as follows: A sale of the property had taken place and the auction purchaser defaulted in making the further deposit on the sale, and subsequently in the auction purchaser's absence the Court passed an order that a re-sale should take place and the auction purchaser should be responsible for any deficiency. About two years after this order was passed the question again arose as to whether the auction purchaser was responsible for the deficiency and the executing Court held that he was bound by the order of his predecessor. The judgment of the Lahore High Court was based principally on the ground that the ex parte order originally passed could not be binding on the auction purchaser, although there were some remarks to the effect that the deficiency could not be recovered if the sale had not taken place forthwith under Order 21, Rule 84. Angnu v. Mahomed Sajjad Ali Khan is a direct authority for the auction purchasers' case. It a