Kapur, J. - (1.) THIS is a rule directed against an order passed by a Subordinate Judge of Delhi setting aside the sale at the instance of the Custodian and ordering the D.H. to refund the decretal amount to the auction -purchaser.
(2.) THE sale in execution of a decree against Rehamt Ullah was confirmed on 28 -6 -1948. On 5 -1 -1949, the Custodian applied for the setting aside of the sale under Section 8, East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, XIV (14) of 1947 and on 11 -3 -1950, the order was passed which is the subject -matter of the present revision. By the time the order of the Court was passed Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949 had been promulgated and it came into force on 18 -10 -1949.
(3.) THE first submission of Mr. Sarin on behalf of the Petitioners is that this sale could not be set aside because in the present Act which was passed in 1950 and came into force on 18 -4 -1950, it is only sales made under orders of a Court which can be set aside. I am unable to agree with this submission because the transfer of property in an execution sale always takes place under the orders of a court, although it may be in execution of a decree. Therefore this contention is without any substance and must be overruled.;