JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— This matter comes before us on an objection by Durga, the judgment-debtor, to the execution of a decree for Sale obtained by the decree-holder on foot of a mortgage of the 13th of February 1897. The order absolute for sale was passed on the 11th of November, 1899, and an application for sale was made in pursuance of that order. The decree-holder, Bhagwan Das, obtained leave from the Court to bid and purchase the property but upon the undertaking that he would bid for it the full decretal amount. The amount due on foot of the decree was at that time Rs. 480. The property was put up for sale and was sold to one Parsotam for a sum of Rs. 170, and it has been found that Parsotam purchased it as benamidar for the decree-holder. 2. This purchase was made on the 25th of July, 1900. Now it is clear that the purchase by Parsotam for the decree-holder was an abuse of the process of the Court, and that it was open to the judgment-debtor, when he became aware of this purchase, to have applied to have the sale set aside under the provisions of the third paragraph of section 294 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This step was riot taken by the judgment-debtor. But now, when an application has been made by the decree-holder under section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, for execution of the decree so far as the same remains unsatisfied, he put forward the objection that inasmuch as the decree-holder improperly purchased the property the Court should not allow him now to execute the decree for any amount which may have remained due to him. We do not see our way to passing any such order, and for this reason we must assume that the sale, which has taken place, is a valid sale until it has been set aside. The sale has not been set aside. It is idle to point out to us that the purchase by the decree-holder was improper under the circumstances, seeing that it was open to the judgment-debtor to take steps to have it set aside in due course of law. Under these circumstances we cannot allow the objection and must dismiss the appeal with costs.’