JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— A certain firm in Cawnpore, which is here represented by the respondent, obtained a simple money decree against one Musammat Janki Kuar alias Bari Bahu. In execution of that decree the property now in dispute was brought to sale and was purchased by the decree-holders. Musammat Janki Kuar asked that the sale might be set aside. Her application was disallowed by the first Court, but on appeal it was allowed by the learned District Judge, who set aside the sale. This Court was moved to interfere in revision and it declined to interfere. The decree-holders then brought a regular suit against Musammat Janki Kuar to have the sale confirmed. Two other decree-holders, who had also asked to have the sale set aside, were made defendants on their own application. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation, and his decision was affirmed by the District Judge. On second appeal, however, the decision of the District Judge was set aside and the case remanded under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the case went back, Musammat Janki Kuar confessed judgment. Notwithstanding this the suit for confirmation of sale was dismissed against all the defendants, including Musammat Janki Kuar, who was allowed her costs. This took place on the 26th March, 1895. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, but though his suit had been dismissed against Musammat Janki Kuar, he did not make her a party to the appeal The result of the appeal was that on the 18th August, 1896, it was decreed as against Sarup Rani and Man Kuar, the rival decree-holders alone, and, on the 16th June, 1897, a sale certificate was granted to the successful appellant. 2. Prior to this, however, the property in suit had been sold in execution of a money decree obtained by one Debi Prasad, who is not to be confounded with Debi Prasad, respondent to this appeal, and it was purchased on the 7th November, 1894, by Girja Dayal, appellant here, who obtained possession. This suit is brought to recover possession from him on the ground that the purchase conveyed no title. The suit was dismissed by the first Court. On appeal it was decreed by the learned District Judge, and it is from this decree that the present appeal is filed. This suit is brought to recover possession from him on the ground that the purchase conveyed no title. The suit was dismissed by the first Court. On appeal it was decreed by the learned District Judge, and it is from this decree that the present appeal is filed. The learned District Judge held that even if Bari Balm be taken to be no party to the appellate Court proceedings, the decree of the appellate Court binds her as well as the other party. The view thus taken by the learned District Judge is impugned in the fourth and the fifth pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal. We think that these pleas must be sustained. The sale upon the basis of which the plaintiff-respondent came into Court had been set aside on the judgment-debtor's application. The regular suit to have the sale confirmed had been rightly or wrongly dismissed as against the judgment-debtor. It was not open to the Judge in appeal, to which Musammat Janki Kuar was no party, to set aside this decree in her favour. It follows, therefore, that there was no bar to the sale of the property which took place on the 7th November, 1894, at which the present appellant purchased. We gave the respondent time to endeavour to get the Court of the Subordinate Judge to amend the decree dismissing the suit as against Bari Bahu. He has failed in this attempt. The result is that we allow this appeal, and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court with costs, restore that of the Court of first instance. Costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.