- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) FOR execution of money decree passed in Original suit No. 456 of 1964 Execution Case No. 39 of 1971 was filed. In execution proceedings agricultural land belonging to Judgment-Debtor, admeasuring 8. 63 acres was sold in auction for Rs. 5600/- in favour of the petitioner No. 2 on 7-3-1972. Petitioner No. 1 is decree holder and petitioner No. 2 Prem Kumar is auction purchaser, whose bid in the auction dated 7- 3-1972 was highest. The sale was confirmed on 8-7-1972. According to petitioner No. 2, possession was also given to him on 8-7-1972. However, this fact was seriously denied by the Judgment-debtors respondents. Judgment-debtors on 9-7-1973 filed two objections one under Section 47 C. P. C. and the other under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. Objections under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. were initially registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 89 of 1973, thereafter as Miscellaneous Case No. 120 of 1977 and objections under Section 47 C. P. C. as Miscellaneous Case No. 88 of 1973. The objections were dismissed on 25-4- 1977 by Vth Additional Munsif, Deoria. Against the order rejecting objections under Order XXI, Rule 90 C. P. C. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 46 of-1977 was filed by the Judgment-debtors. Civil Revision No. 159 of 1977 was filed against rejection of objections under Section 47 C. P. C. Vth Additional District Judge. Deoria through judgment and order dated 19-7-1982 allowed the appeal, set aside the auction sale by accepting the objections of the Judgment-debtors under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. (However, learned Additional District Judge dismissed the revision ). Learned Additional District Judge held that proceedings for attachment were legal. Accordingly only auction sale was set aside, but the attachment was kept in tact and it was directed that fresh auction proceedings should be taken by the trial Court/executing Court.
(3.) IT has been stated by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents that after filing of this writ petition Judgment-debtors deposited the entire decreetal amount on 4-12-1982. The objections under Order XXI Rule 90 C. P. C. were barred by time, hence application for condonation of delay under Section 17 of the Limitation Act was filed. Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act there is no question of condonation of delay. By virtue of the said section limitation itself starts running from the date of knowledge.;