Hazari Ram vs Badai Ram and Nando Lal

Beverley, J.—In this case certain property was sold in execution of a decree and was purchased by the decree-holder himself. After the sale, within thirty days, an application was made by one Nando Lal tendering the amount of the decree and stating that he had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor since the sale and asking that the sale might be set aside under the provisions of section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsiff apparently without notice to the decree-holder set aside the sale. The purchaser then appealed to the District Judge who held that no appeal would lie; and accordingly an application has been made to this Court under the provisions of, section 622 of the Code. We are of opinion that the Munsiff acted without jurisdiction and that his order must be set aside. The words of the section 310A are: "Any person whose immoveable property has been sold under this chapter may at any time within thirty days from the date of sale apply to have the sale set aside."

Now, at the time of the sale in this case the property was not the property of the applicant. It is admitted that he purchased it after the date of the sale, and therefore, this section will not properly apply to a case of this kind. This provision of the law is purposely enacted for protection of judgment-debtors; and it cannot, in our opinion, be extended to apply to the case of a third party who purchases the property after its sale. It is clear that if that be allowed it might open the door for considerable fraud and injustice. We think that in this case the applicant had no locus standi under the section referred to. The order of the Munsiff must therefore be set aside. We accordingly make this Rule absolute with costs one gold mohur.