AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 163 wordsThe appellant is a purchaser at a Court auction. No second appeal lies against an order passed in appeal upon his petition to set aside a sale by Court on the ground that the judgment-debtor Had no saleable interest.
See Section 104(2) and Order XLIII, Rule 1(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Surendra Mohini Debi v. Loharam Chattopadhya 14 Ind. Cas. 67. and Parameswara Atyar v. Veerakutti Patter A.A.A.O. No. 111 of 1916. in this Court.
It is suggested for appellant that he was a representative of the judgment-debtor and that Section 47, therefore, applies, but it has been held in Nadamuni Narayana Iyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429. that this is not so where, as in this case, the sale was in execution of a money decree. We have been asked to treat this appeal as a petition for revision but there are no grounds for doing so. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.