1. In execution of a money-decree against the applicant some immoveable property of his was sold by auction after attachment and was purchased by the non-applicant on the 3rd November, 1919. Before the sale was confirmed the decree-holder on the 17th November, 1919 deposited 5 percent, of the purchase-money for payment to the auction purchaser and applied to the Court for the dismissal of his execution application stating that he had received a part of the decretal amount and had allowed 2 months time from that date to the applicant for payment of the balance. On the 5th December, 1919 when the application came on for hearing the decree holder informed the Court that the balance had been paid to him on the 25th November, 1919 and that his decree was fully satisfied and prayed that the sale be set aside and the property released. The Court granted the application and did not confirm the sale.
2. The lower Appellate Court reversed the first Court's order and confirmed the sale.
3. It held that the Code of Civil Procedure gave no option to the decree-holder or the judgment debtor to defeat the rights of an auction-purchaser by any settlement between themselves and that under R. 89 of O. 21 of that Code, although the payment to the decree-holder may be treated as a deposit in Court, yet as the application to set aside the sale and the deposit of the 5 per cent, of the purchase-money were not made by a person who had an interest in the judgment debtor's property, that rule had no application and the sale had to be confirmed under R. 92, O. 21.
4. The view taken by the lower Appellate Court is perhaps technically correct, although it may be argued that such an application on the judgment-debtor's part was implied from what actually took place; but leaving that question aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court cannot be supported from another point of view. Where a decree is admitted by the decree-holder to be satisfied, it ceases, to exist as a decree capable of execution.
5. The vary foundation of the powers of a Court to execute a decree, namely, the existence of a decree capable of execution, having disappeared the Court's powers in execution also cease, and confirmation of the sale which is a proceeding in execution cannot be ordered: Vide Khushalchand Premraj v. Nandram Sakebram (1911) 35 Bom. 515 , 12 I.C 572 , 13 Bom. L.R 977 and Mul Chand v. Mukta Prasad (1887) 10 All. 83 , 1837 A.W.N 287.
6. The application is allowed with costs. The order of the lower Appellate Court confirming the sale is set aside. Pleader's fee Rs. 15.
7. Application allowed.