JUDGMENT B.K. Mukherjea, J. - The appeal is on behalf of the judgment-debtor and it arises out of a proceeding commenced by him under S. 47, Civil P. C., to set aside a rent execution sale on the ground that the sale being held in spite of a notice being issued under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, was illegal and void for want of jurisdiction. The material facts are not in controversy and may be stated as fallows. The Port Canning and Land Improvement Co. Ltd., who is respondent 1 in this appeal, obtained a decree for rent against the appellant judgment-debtor on 25th May 1937. There were certain proceedings in execution of the decree commenced in the year 1940, but they proved infructuous, and thereafter the present application for execution was filed in the Court of the Third Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas, on 13th May 1943. It appears that some time before this execution was started, the judgment-debtor filed an application for settlement of his debts before the Alipore Debt Settlement Board, and that Board while transferring the case for disposal to the Garia Debt Settlement Board issued a notice under S.34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, directing stay of all further proceedings in execution of the rent decree. This notice was received by the executing Court on 15th May 1943. For some reason or other, it seems, that the attention of the Court was not drawn to this notice, and the proceedings in execution continued in the usual way and the tenancy in arrears was put up to sale and purchased by a stranger purchaser who is respondent 2 in this appeal. On 13th September 1943, the sale was confirmed and on the very same day, the execution case was disposed of on full satisfaction. On 18th September 1943, the decree-holder withdrew the amount due under the decree, and on 27th September 1943 the sale certificate was signed and sealed. On 3rd November 1943 the judgment-debtor commenced the present proceeding to set aside the sale on the ground that it was null and void, the executing Court having no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution and put up the property to sale after receiving a notice under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The trial Court allowed the application of the judgment-debtor and set aside the sale. The trial Court allowed the application of the judgment-debtor and set aside the sale. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge of 24 parganas reversed the decision of the trial Court, and dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor on the ground that such application was not maintainable under S. 47, Civil P. C. It is against this decision that the present second appeal has been filed. 2. The main question pressed for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether or not the Court of appeal below was right in holding that the application of the judgment-debtor was not one which would come within the purview of S. 47, Civil P. C. What the judgment-debtor wants in the present case is undoubtedly to set aside an execution sale on the ground that the executing Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution and put up the property to sale after receipt of a notice under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. This obviously raises a question relating to the execution of the decree, land if the question has got to be decided between the parties to the suit or their representatives, it admits of no doubt that the matter would come within S. 47, Civil P. C. The learned Additional District Judge has taken the view that the matter in issue is certainly one relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree, but as it arises between the judgment-debtor on the one hand and a stranger auction-purchaser on the other, who at best can be a representative of the judgment-debtor himself, the provisions of S. 47, Civil P. C., are not attracted to the facts of this case. 3. We cannot accept this view of the learned Additional District Judge as sound. The judgment-debtor in the present case disputed the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree by sale of the attached properties as soon as a notice under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, was received by the executing Court. 3. We cannot accept this view of the learned Additional District Judge as sound. The judgment-debtor in the present case disputed the right of the decree-holder to execute the decree by sale of the attached properties as soon as a notice under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, was received by the executing Court. This is undoubtedly a question between the judgment-debtor on the one hand and the decree-holder on the other, and the fact that the purchaser who is not a party to the suit is interested in the result does not operate as a bar to the application of S. 47 (old S. 244) of the Civil P. C.: vide the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 19 I. A. 166 Prosunno Coomar Sanyal v. Kali Das Sanyal ('92) 19 Cal. 683 : 19 I. A. 166 : 6 Sar. 209 (P. C.). We think, however, that there is another question which requires consideration in this case, and that is whether the judgment-debtor is competent to start the present proceeding for setting aside the sale after the sale has been confirmed by an order of the Court, and the execution case disposed of on full satisfaction. We may say that there are decisions of other High Courts in India which have gone to the length of holding that when a property has been sold in execution, and the sale has been confirmed, the executing Court becomes functus officio, and an objection with respect to the property sold cannot be taken under S. 47, Civil P. C., after the sale is confirmed: vide I. L. R. (1939) Lah. 103 Ram Chandra v. Sarupa ('39) 26 A. I. R. 1939 Lah. 113 : ILR (1939) Lah. 103: 184 I.C. 393 and I. L. R. (1939) Lah. 116 Wasti Ram Gurditta Mal v. Mt. Ganeshi ('39) 26 A. I. R. 1939 Lah. 405: I. L. R. (1939) Lah. 116 : 184 I. C. 846. 4. In this Court, however, the view taken is somewhat different. One of the earliest pronouncements on this point is to be found in 26 Cal. 727 Durga Charan Mandal v. Kali Prasanna (1900) 26 Cal. 727. In this case, in execution of a decree for rent, an occupancy holding belonging to the judgment-debtor was sold. 4. In this Court, however, the view taken is somewhat different. One of the earliest pronouncements on this point is to be found in 26 Cal. 727 Durga Charan Mandal v. Kali Prasanna (1900) 26 Cal. 727. In this case, in execution of a decree for rent, an occupancy holding belonging to the judgment-debtor was sold. The sale was duly confirmed, and when the auction-purchaser applied for delivery of possession, one of the judgment-debtors put in a petition objecting to the sale on the ground that the property having been a non-transferable occupancy holding was not saleable in law. It was held by this Court that the confirmation of the sale was no bar to the application under S. 47 (old S. 244) that was made by the judgment-debtor, the question being one which related to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree; but if the judgment-debtor was actually a party to the order for sale or was aware of the proceeding and did not appeal against it, he was precluded from questioning the propriety of the order and the sale held in pursuance of the order. The result was that the case was sent back for a proper investigation on the point as to whether or not the judgment-debtors were parties to the order for sale or were aware of the proceeding in execution. 5. In 9 C.W.N. 972 Sheikh Murullah v. Sheikh Burullah ('05) 9 C.W.N. 972, a non-transferable occupancy holding was sold in execution of a decree and was purchased by one Kashi Nath who transferred it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of possession of the property against the judgment-debtor. It was held that the defendant having had full knowledge of the execution proceedings and not having objected to the sale was not competent to resist the purchaser after confirmation of sale. In this case, the suit was brought by the purchaser for recovery of possession, and consequently no question arose as to whether it was open to the judgment-debtor to make an application under S. 47, Civil P. C. This was followed in 34 Cal. 199 Dwarkanath Pal v. Tarini Sankar Roy ('07) 34 Cal. 199, where also a suit was brought by the purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding for recovery of possession of the property after the sale was confirmed. 199 Dwarkanath Pal v. Tarini Sankar Roy ('07) 34 Cal. 199, where also a suit was brought by the purchaser of a non-transferable occupancy holding for recovery of possession of the property after the sale was confirmed. It was held that as the judgment-debtor though aware of the execution proceeding did not raise any objection to the sale, it was not competent to him to resist the purchaser after the sale was confirmed, and that as between himself and the purchaser the title to the property vested in the latter on such confirmation. Exactly the same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in 40 ALL. 680 Lala Ram Vs. Thakur Prasad, AIR 1918 All 305 , and by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Vuppulury Somasundaram Vs. Bhimisetti Kondayya, AIR 1926 Mad 12 . We have no doubt as to the soundness of the view taken in these decisions, and the result is that though we cannot accept the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, we cannot, at the same time, agree with the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in the trial Court and set aside the sale merely on the ground that it was held after receipt of the notice, by the executing Court, under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. 6. Mr. Ghose appearing for the appellant has contended before us that the judgment-debtor-appellant was not aware of the execution proceeding, and as a matter of fact, no evidence was adduced on that point and no clear finding arrived at by the trial Court; he has further contended that even if the judgment-debtor was aware of the execution proceeding or was a party to the order for sale, as that order was entirely without jurisdiction, the question of res judicata on the basis of which the cases mentioned above were decided would have no application. It has been argued by Mr. Banerjee for the respondent that there was no allegation made by the judgment-debtor that he was really unaware of the execution proceeding and all that was averred in his petition was that the attention of the Court was not drawn to the fact that there was a notice issued by the Debt Settlement Board under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. On the other question, it is argued that the mere fact of a notice being issued under S. 34, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, does not by itself oust the jurisdiction of the executing Court to proceed with the sale. It is open to the executing Court to ignore the notice if it is found to be issued without jurisdiction by the Debt Settlement Board, and the question whether or not it was properly issued by the Debt Settlement Board is exclusively for the Civil Court to decide. 7. We do not think that it would be proper to express our opinion on either of the points mentioned above. We think that both these points require investigation. We accordingly set aside the orders of the Courts below and send the case back to the trial Court in order that the case may be reheard in accordance with the directions given above and with particular reference to the two questions formulated above. The Court will allow the parties to adduce additional evidence if it so chooses, and will dispose of the case according to law. We make no order as to costs in this Court. Subsequent costs will be in the discretion of the trial Court. It will be for the trial Court to decide whether pending the disposal of the case the property will remain in possession of the judgment-debtor or will be given to the auction-purchaser. The auction-purchaser, if he is so advised, may also make an application for the appointment of a Receiver. Ellis J. 8. I agree.