1. The lower appellate Court, following the decision of this Court in Bashir-ud-din v. Jhori Singh (1890) I.L.R., 19 All., 140, dismissed the appeal pending before it on the ground that no appeal lies from an order passed under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to accept a deposit tendered under that section on the ground that it was too late. In the case cited this Court came to that conclusion in consequence of the view then taken
"that a purchaser at an auction gale was not a representative, within the meaning of
Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of a party to the suit in execution of the decree in which the sale had taken place."
Since then, however, this same question as to whether a purchaser at auction Sale is or is not a representative, within the meaning of Section 244, of a party to a suit, came up for decision before a, Full Bench of this Court, and it was laid down in the case of
Gulzari Lal v. Madho Ram (1904) I.L.R., 26 All., 447 that an auction purchaser at a sale held in execution of a simple money-decree against a judgment-debtor: whose property has been ordered to be sold at the suit of mortgages in a mortgage suit is a representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of
Section 244(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The result of this is that the case of
Bashir-ud-din v. Jhori Singh can no longer be cited as an authority, and an appeal does He from an order passed under Section 310A. The same view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in
Phul Chand Ram v. Nursingh Pershad Misser (1899) I.L.R., 88 Calc., 73. The appeal is decreed, the decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside, and the proceedings are remanded to that Court with instructions to that Court to readmit them on the file of pending appeals and dispose them of according to law. We make no order as to the costs of this appeal.