Kirty J. - (1.) K . B. Asthana. J. has referred this revision for decision by a Division Bench, because in his opinion it involves questions of law of sufficient im portance.
(2.) FIRM Ram Chand Vinod Chand,, the opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of some money against the ap plicants. This suit was decreed. The decree-holder firm then applied for ex ecution of the decree by attachment and sale of two plots of agricultural land numbered 237/2 and 929. The said plots were attached on 19-12-1961 and ulti mately sold at an auction held on 3-3-1964. The decree-holders were the pur chasers. The sale was confirmed on 4-4-1964. Sale certificate was issued to the purchasers on 2- 5-1967. The decree-holders as purchasers filed an application in the executing court under Order XXI, Rule 95 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that possession be delivered over plot No. 1173 (area 2 bighas 4 biswas and 7 biswansis) after amendment of the sale certificate. Along with this application the original sale certificate issued to the decree-holders appears to have been filed. In the application it was stated that in place of plot Nos. 237/2 and 929 which were attached and sold in execution proceed ings plot No. 1173 had been allotted, to the judgment-debtors in consolidation, proceedings. This application was op posed by the present applicants i. e. the original judgment-debtors on the ground that the decree-holders' application was not legally maintainable and that it was also barred by Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was asserted that the property which was attached and sold and in respect of which the sale certificate had been granted to the decree- holders was the only property of which the decree-holders were entitl ed to be given possession. It was also asserted that the decree-holders had no legal right to get the sale certificate am ended or to obtain possession of plot No. 1173 and that their remedy, if any could be by a regular suit in a competent court. This application has been allowed by the executing court, which has direct ed the sale certificate to be amended by the substitution of plot No. 1173 in place of the two plots originally mentioned therein. The court has also ordered pos session of the said plot to be delivered to the decree-holders. On behalf of the applicants it was urged that the executing court had no jurisdiction either to make any amend ment in the sale certificate duly issued to the opposite parties on 2-4-67, or to order delivery of possession to the purchasers of any property other than the property which was sold in respect of which the sale certificate was issued. It was also contended that the application made by the opposite parties was barred by Sec tion 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that the remedy of the decree-holder auction purchasers, if any. would be to make an application under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act or to in stitute a regular suit in a competent court of law for such relief as they may be entitled to in the circumstances of the case. On the other hand, it was contend ed on behalf of the opposite parties that in the consolidation proceedings plot No.1173 was allotted to the applicants in lieu of and in substitution for the origi nal plots numbered 237/2 & 929 of which they were owners. Since the property which was sold and purchased by the decree-holders was substituted by an other property the decree-holders were entitled to have the sale certificate cor rected and also to have possession of such property delivered to them. These contentions require an examination of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) concerning execution of decrees and, in particular, execution of decrees for the payment of money, as also of some provisions of the Act. Section 51 of the Code em powers the executing court to order ex ecution of the decree: (a) by delivery of any property speci fically decreed; (b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property; (c) by arrest and detention in prison; (d) by appointing a receiver; or (e) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted may require. The mode of execution in the instant case was by attachment and sale of two speci fied plots of land of the judgment debtors. As required under Rule 13 of Order 21, the decree-holders had to and did specify the necessary particulars and the num bers of the two plots in their application under Rule 11(2) of the Order for the execution of the decree. The Court ad mitted the application and ordered the decree to be executed accordingly under Rule 17(4). In due course the two plots were attached as required and in the manner provided by Rule 54. Thereafter a proclamation was made of the intended sale under Rule 66(1). The sale pro clamation had to be and was drawn up in accordance with sub-rules (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 66. In it the necessary parti culars of the two plots to be sold were specified as required by sub-rule (2). The proclamation was made and published in the manner laid in Rule 67 and the two plots, attached and proclaimed to be sold, were sold on 3-3-1964 by public auction and purchased by the decree-holders. The sale was confirmed on 4-4-1964 under Rule 92. Under Rule 91. a purchaser has been given a right to make an applica tion to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold. No such application was made by the purchasers in the instant case either be fore the confirmation of the sale or at any time thereafter. Indeed, it is not their case that judgment-debtors had no sale able interest in the two plots. The sale haying become absolute, the Court as re quired under Rule 94 granted a certi ficate to the purchasers specifying the property sold. viz. the two specified plots concerned, in Form No. 38 given in Ap pendix E to the Code. Rule 95 of Order 21 of the Code provides as follows: "Where the immoveable property sold iis in the occupancy of the iudgment-debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the iudgment-debtor subse quently to the attachment of such pro perty and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under R. 94, the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be. by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same",
(3.) THIS rule makes it clear that possession can be ordered to be delivered by the Court of the immovable property sold where such property is in the oc cupation of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property.;