JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the matter in controversy between the parties is one which could be determined under section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure or whether the respondent, Randhir Singh's remedy was a separate suit. Randhir Singh sought to set aside the auction sale at which the appellant purchased his property on the grounds that fraud had been committed and that having regard to section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, the decree-holder was not entitled to bring the property to sale in as much as he himself held a mortgage over it. Both these questions are in my judgment questions which relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of clause (c) of section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been held in a number of cases to which I do not deem it necessary to refer. I may also add that when a regular suit was brought by the respondent, Randhir Singh, the plea of the appellant was that Randhir Singh's remedy was an application under section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that plea prevailed. Holding the view that I do on the question of the applicability of section 244, I deem it unnecessary to determine whether the decision in that case can operate as res judicata. In my judgment there is no force in this appeal and I would dismiss it with costs. AIKMAN, J. I am of opinion that the decision of the Courts below is right. In my judgment the case is one clearly falling within the provision of section 244, clause (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. I doubt very much whether it is open to the appellant to put forward the plea which he now urges. The respondent, Randhir Singh, brought a regular suit to have the sale set aside. A plea was taken by the present appellant that a regular suit would not lie, and that Randhir Singh's remedy was an application under section 244. The Subordinate Judge sustained the appellant's objection and dismissed the suit. The respondent, Randhir Singh, brought a regular suit to have the sale set aside. A plea was taken by the present appellant that a regular suit would not lie, and that Randhir Singh's remedy was an application under section 244. The Subordinate Judge sustained the appellant's objection and dismissed the suit. Now when Randhir Singh makes an application under section 244, the appellant turns round and says, you cannot apply under section 244, you must bring a regular suit.’ In my opinion this issue was decided as between the parties in the previous litigation, and I am of opinion that the appellant cannot go behind that decision. To allow him to do so would, to use Lord BOWEN'S expression in Gandy v. Gandy, [1884] 30 Ch. D., 51, be playing fast and loose with justice.” I concur in thinking that the appeal should be dismissed. 2. BY THE COURT:— The order of the Court is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.