A.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) These two appeals are connected with each other and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of together. The circumstances in which they have arisen are these:
(2.) House No. 47/55, General Ganj Kanpur, belonged to Smt. Premwati Jain and Sri Kamal Kumar Jain. Their predecessor entitle was Manoharlal Jain. Manoharlal Jain had executed a simple mortgage in respect of the house in favour of Smt. Birmo Devi. She filed a suit for the enforcement of the mortgage and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree the house was put up for sale. In the mean-time the New Empire Engineering Company Private Ltd., the Appellant in both these appeals (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Appellant) purchased the house when it was sold at auction in execution of a simple money decree which one Chandra Shekhar had against Smt. Premwati Jain and Kamal Kumar Jain. This sale was held on the 18th of March, 1955, but was not confirmed till the 7th of May, 1956. Before it was confirmed in favour of the Appellant, Smt. Birmo Devi the decree-holder in the mortgage decree got the house sold in execution of her own decree. In the execution of that decree the property was sold first through a firm of auctioners on the 10th of September, 1956, and Smt. Birmo Devi herself purchased it for Rs. 60,000. That sale was, however, set aside on the 20th of December, 1957. The property was again put up for sale on the 17th of April, 1958, and the decree holder again purchased it this time for Rs. 59, 500. On the 6th of September, 1956, the Appellant applied to be impleaded as judgment debtor on the ground that it had purchased the property at an auction sale under the simple money decree. This application was rejected by an order dated the 6th of Sept. 1956, on the ground that the Appellant was an absolute stranger and had no right to be impleaded in the case. It is against that order that Ex. F.A. No. 532 of 1956 has been preferred. The Appellant subsequently filed an objection against the proposed proclamation of sale also but that was rejected on the ground that it had no right to object. After the sale was held on the 17th of April, 1958 the Appellant made an application under Or. XXI, R. 90, Code of Civil Procedure objecting to the sale and praying that it be set aside. A number of irregularities in the publication and the conducting of the sale were alleged and it was also said that there was collusion between the auction purchaser and the original judgment debtors. It was contended chat the property which was worth more than a lac and a half had been sold for an inadequate amount of Rs. 59, 500. The application for setting aside the sale was opposed on behalf of the of the auction purchaser Smt. Birmo Devi and was rejected by the executing court by its order dated the 27th of July 1959. Against that order F.A.F.O. No. 391 of 1959 has been filed.
(3.) Taking up Ex. F.A. No. 532 of 1956 first, it is contended on behalf of the Appellant that having purchased the interest of the judgment debtors at the auction sale in the simple money decree and the sale in favour of the Appellant having been confirmed, the Appellant became a representative of the judgment debtors so far as their interest in the property sought to be sold was concerned and was on that account entitled to be impleaded in the execution case and to be allowed to file objections but by the order under appeal the Appellant has been deprived of that right.;