Chulhi Upadhya v. Badri Upadhya

Knox, J.:— The facts of this appeal are somewhat complicated but the appeal may be decided on a short point. In execution of a decree certain zamindar property was attached, and as it was ancestral property the record was sent to the Collector of the District for execution.

2. He directed a sale to be held. The officer reported to him that the highest bid was Rs. 1,005. The Collector accepted that bid, but before the sale was confirmed it was brought to his notice that the bid was much less than the property was worth. Thereupon the Collector passed the following order, “Re-sale will take place on the 20th June, 1914, after proclamation; unless there is a higher bid the sale of the 20th March, 1913, will stand”. Objection was taken to that order and an appeal was made to the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, hence this suit. The relief sought by the plaintiff is. “The sale dated the 20th of March, 1913, be confirmed and a decree awarding possession over a one anna share in mauza Khola Jhonga, tappa Ghosi, pargana Bansi (East), district Basbi, and also mesne profits, may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.” The first Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court has dismissed it. It seems to us that the decree of the lower appellate Court was right. We are not concerned with and have not got to decide whether the order of the Collector was a good order or a had order. Under rule 9 of Chapter IV of the General Rules passed by this Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. “A Civil Court has no power to interfere with the procedure of a Collector in the execution of a decree which has been transferred to him under section 68 of Act No. V of 1908”.

3. In this view the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

4. Appeal dismissed.