TMI Blog1942 (12) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date fixed (28th October 1938) and was purchased by Asa Ram respondent. The judgment-debtor preferred objections to the sale and thereupon the Court set aside the sale, holding that as the Court had stayed the sale, the officer conducting the sale was deprived of legal authority to conduct it. In support of this contention, the Court relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Nihal Chand v. Shab Dev Singh A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 694. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge, but he upheld the order of the executing Court on the basis of the same ruling. 2. A second appeal having been preferred to this Court, the learned Judge before whom it came up for hearing, found that in Lakshmi Chand v. Phul Chand AIR1930All17 (which was not referred to in Nihal Chand v. Shab Dev Singh A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 694 a different view was taken as regards the legality of a sale in circumstances such as those stated above. Dalip Singh J. who decided that case was of opinion that the officer conducting a sale in execution is in the position of an accredited agent of the Court and therefore the order for stay of sale passed by the Court does not take effect, until the order is co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of stay was communicated to the officer conducting the sale before the sale took place. The answer to the above question depends upon the legal position of the officer conducting the sale qua the executing Court. In Lakshmi Chand v. Phul Chand AIR1930All17, the position of such an officer was taken to be that of an 'accredited agent' of the Court. This view appears to be based upon Kala Mes v. Harperink (09) 36 Cal. 323 in which the officer conducting a sale was so described by their Lordships of the Privy Council. But the question now before us was not before their Lordships in that case. The only question before their Lordships in that case was that of the effect of misapprehension on material points on the part of an auction purchaser due to certain statements made by a court auctioneer. I do not therefore think that the description of the latter as an 'accredited agent' in this ruling can be considered to be authoritative so far as the question involved in the present case is concerned. In the present instance the sale was to be conducted by the Collector but it is not disputed that the position of the Collector conducting a sale in such cases under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Under the Code of Civil Procedure the officer conducting the execution sale derives his authority and competence entirely from the Court executing the decree, and it is clear from the powers given by the statute to such Court that if it does postpone a sale, its order must have the immediate effect of postponing the sale; indeed, if it be not so, most serious complications might arise, and the result would ensue that although a Court having full power to do so had postponed a sale, the officer appointed to conduct it might nevertheless hold such sale. I do not think that the question whether the order of the postponement did or did not reach the officer conducting the sale is of any serious importance. When once the sale was postponed, all power to hold it J went out of the officer appointed, and he, though no doubt in this particular case without being aware of it, was functus officio. 6. The argument of Mukerji J. in support of the contrary view was as stated below: It is undoubtedly true that the sale officer derives his authority to sell from the Court. But so do all agents from the principal. But who has ever heard that the principal is not bound b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of a Court passing an order staying a sale is thus different from that of an ordinary principal. The position would seem to be analogous where the authority of the principal ceases owing to operation of law, e. g., by his death. In such a case it has been held that the authority of the agent is determined as soon as death takes place even if the agent had no notice. Cf. Pool v. Pool (1889) 58 L.J.P. 67 and Campanari v. Woodbird (1854) 15 C.B. 400. If the principle of Section 208, Contract Act, according to which revocation of authority of an agent does not take effect as against him until it becomes known to him, and so far as regards third persons are concerned until it becomes known to them, were held applicable to a court-sale, serious complications will ensue. For instance, under Order 21, Rule 83, Civil P.C., a judgment-debtor is entitled to obtain postponement of the sale by complying with the provisions of the rule; but the order may easily be rendered nugatory by delay in sending intimation to the sale officer. Again even if the intimation reaches that officer and he dishonestly proceeds to sell the property, the sale will have to be held good against third parties ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
