JUDGMENT 1. The present rule was issued on an application arising out of certain proceedings taken in execution of a rent decree. In execution of that decree the holding belonging to the Petitioner appears to have been sold. Admittedly within thirty days from the date of sale, the Petitioner put in an application under sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for permission to deposit the amount recoverable under the decree with costs for payment to the decree-holder and the sum equal to five per cent, on the purchase-money for payment to the purchaser in order to have the sale set aside. It appears that the Petitioner who is a minor and is represented by his mother instructed a muktear to make this deposit and that the muktear following the ordinary practice went to the executive mohurer of the Munsif's Court in order to ascertain from him the amount recoverable under the decree and apparently he ascertained what amount also was payable to the purchaser. The executive mohurer drew up an account on the back of the application in which he showed that Rs. 65 ans. 5 were recoverable under the decree and that Rs. 12 and 13 was payable as what is called compensation. The muktear on receipt of that information had two challis drawn up one for Rs. 65 ans. 5 and another for Rs. 12 ans. 13 which were signed and passed by the Sheristadar of the Munsif's Court and thereafter the money was deposited, the former sum for payment to the decree-holder and the latter for payment to the purchaser. The decree-holder offering no objection, the sale was Bet aside and the money was paid out on the 19th February 1906. On the 27th February 1906, the auction-pur-chaser put in an application to have the order set aside on the ground that the deposit made in his favour was Rs. 2 ans. 7 short of the amount to which he was entitled. Thereupon the Petitioner applied for permission to deposit the deficit amount and the sum was deposited on the 27th February 1906. The auction-purchaser, the present Petitioner, then put in an application under sec. 623 before the Munsif for review of the order setting aside the sale. That application was, however, dismissed. Thereupon the Petitioner applied for permission to deposit the deficit amount and the sum was deposited on the 27th February 1906. The auction-purchaser, the present Petitioner, then put in an application under sec. 623 before the Munsif for review of the order setting aside the sale. That application was, however, dismissed. On the 28th June 1906 the present rule was obtained by the Petitioner on the opposite party, judgment-debtor, to show cause why the orders complained of, that is to say, the order setting aside the sale should not be set aside and the sale confirmed, or why the review should not be granted. 2. So far as the alternative part of the rule is concerned, we do not think that we have any power under sec 622, C. P. C, under the circumstances disclosed in this case, to interfere with the order refusing the review. The application for review was not in proper form and therefore the Munsif was right in refusing it. 3. In support of the contention that the order setting aside the sale should be cancelled, we have been referred to the Full Bench case of Chundi Charan Mandal v. Banke Behari Lal I. L. R. 26 Cal. 449 (1899). 4. That case, however, distinctly dealt with an application under sec. 310A, C. P. C, and expressly avoided considering what order should be passed with reference to a case coming under sec. 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. So far, therefore, as the present case is concerned, we must hold hat the decision is not binding upon us. 5. The question which we have to consider has been dealt with by this Court In two rulings to which we have been referred. One is the case of Ugra Lall v. Radha Persad Singh I. L. R. 18 Cal. 255 (1891) and the other is that of Abdool Latif Moonshi v. Jadub Chandra Mitter I. L. R. 25 Cal. 216 (1897). The facts of the last-mentioned case are very similar to those of the case before us. One is the case of Ugra Lall v. Radha Persad Singh I. L. R. 18 Cal. 255 (1891) and the other is that of Abdool Latif Moonshi v. Jadub Chandra Mitter I. L. R. 25 Cal. 216 (1897). The facts of the last-mentioned case are very similar to those of the case before us. The applicant under sec 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act applied as in this case to the officer of the Court who ordinarily misapplied information necessary to enable the applicant to make a deposit under that section and after the information had been furnished by the officer, the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court approved, or signified his approval, of the information by signing the challan. This is exactly what has happened in the present case and we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the Judges of this Court in those two cases. 6. It is not clear even now how the amount of Rs. 65 ans. 5 has been arrived at and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the amount may have been in excess of the amount recoverable under the decree. It is quite impossible to understand how the amount which is entered as due for compensation was arrived at. The only possible suggestion is that it was the result of a division of the amount originally due under the decree omitting the costs of execution. That was not the proper manner in which to ascertain the amount due to the purchaser which was five per cent, on his purchase-money. In this case the purchase-money was Rs. 308 and the amount due to him under sec. 174 was Rs. 15-1 an. 7. Under the circumstance, we are not prepared to interfere with the order passed by the Munslf setting aside the sale. The judgment-debtor appears to have done his best to comply with the provisions of the section and following the decisions of this Court in the oases to which we have referred, we do not think that this is a case in which we should interfere. We, therefore, discharge the rule with costs-2 (two) gold mohurs.