Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the order of the Civil Judge, Farrukhabad, by which he allowed the objections under Ss. 47 and 151. Civil P. C. and set aside the sale and directed that the money deposited be returned to the auction purchaser.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present' appeal in short are that one Ambalal Patel obtained a decree against Rarn Rakshpal and Shanta Prasad in suit No. 36 of 1957. The decree was put in execution and the execution case was numbered as 44 of 1960. In execution of the decree on 27 -8 -1960 a stock of foodgrains was attached by the Amin and given in the security of Gokul Prasad and Markandi on their executing a bond for the return of the property whenever required by the Court and to pay a sum of Rs. 3333 in case of default. Kishan Gopal filed objections in execution and contended that the property attached belonged to him and not to the judgment -debtor and was not liable to attachment. These objections of Krishan Gopal under Order 21, Rule 58 were enquired into by the Executing Court and a final Order under Order 21, Rule 60 was passed by the Court releasing the property in favour of Kishan Gopal, Gokul Prasad and Markandi. The sureties, however, refused to return the goods and alleged that due to rains it had been spoiled and thrown away. On enquiry made by the Court, it came to the conclusion that the case put up by the sureties was false and that they had sold away the goods and misappropriated the proceeds. The Court on this finding directed that a formal order be prepared for recovery of Rs. 3333 along with costs from the sureties and execution for the same be proceeded under Sec. 145, Civil P. C. In this execution the properties of the sureties were sold on 17th of March, 1963. Gokul Prasad filed an objection under Ss. 47 and 151, Civil P. C. for setting aside the sale on the ground that the order in execution of which the property had been put to sale was a nullity and the sale was, therefore, invalid. The contention was that Sec. 145, Civil P. C. was not applicable to the circumstances of the case and no execution could be launched for recovery of the amount from the sureties. This objection was allowed by the Executing Court and the sale was ordered to be set aside. The present appeal is against that order. It has been filed by Kishan Gopal whose properties have been attached in execution of the decree against Ram Rakshpal and Shanta Prasad.
(3.) There have been a number of amendments in the relevant provisions of the Civil P. C. in so far as they apply to the State of U. P. Order 21, Rule 43 provides for attachment of movable properties other than agricultural produce in possession of judgment -debtor. Rule 122 was added by the Allahabad High Court, with the result that agricultural produce also became liable to such attachment.;