JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - This Rule was obtained by the petitioners decree-holders who challenge an order passed under sec. 151, C. P. C, setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree. The material facts are briefly these: Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 are tenants of the Petitioners and Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 8. They fell into arrears with the rent for the years prior to 1940. An application to the Hetia Debt Settlement Board was made for settlement of their debts, and an award was made, in Debt Settlement Board Case No. 69/8 of 1940, and in that award a sum of Rs. 570-8 was found due as arrears of rent to the present Petitioners. 2. The amount due to the Petitioners under the award was not paid. Further, Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 defaulted in respect of the rent for the period subsequent to the award. Accordingly Petitioners instituted a suit for arrears of rent (R. S. 1342 of 1943) for the period Paus 1346 B. S. to the end of 1349 B. S., and under sec. 26 (a) of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, included in the claim in that suit, the amount of the arrears payable under the award. Opposite Parties Nos. 4 to 8 were joined as pro forma Defendants in the suit, and on their prayer, were subsequently made co-Plaintiffs. A decree for Rs. 1,009-11-3 was passed in that suit in favour of the present Petitioners. 3. Petitioners then took out execution of the decree and in execution had the holding in arrears put up to sale. Opposite Party No. 1 purchased the holding in execution for the sum of Rs. 1,300 and thereafter deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 222-4-3 under the provisions of sec. 168A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 4. Thereafter on 5th February, 1945, Opposite Party No. 1, the auction-purchaser, applied to the Court under sec. 151, C. P. C, to have the sale set aside, and the deposits refunded to him on the ground that the sale was a nullity owing to the decree-holders' failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Munsif held that there had been a failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The learned Munsif held that there had been a failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 35 of the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act that the sale was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity and that the sale was liable to be set aside and the deposits refunded under sec. 151, C.P. C. 5. The Hetia Debt Settlement Board ceased to exist with effect from 1st January, 1944. Two arguments have been urged before me, vis.: 1. that the sale was not a nullity owing to the non-compliance with sec. 35 of the B. A. D. Act; and 2. Even if it was a nullity the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction under sec. 151, C. P. C., to set it aside. 6. There can be no doubt that there was a failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 35, B. A. D. Act. The decree was a decree for recovery of a debt included in an application under sec. 8 of the B. A. D. Act, and for arrears of rent which becomes due from the debtor after the date of an application under sec. 8 in respect of his debts. It was, therefore, a decree partly governed by sec. 35 (i) of the B. A. D. Act and partly by sec. 35 (ii) of the same Act. 7. It is not suggested that the award has ceased to exist under sub-sec. (5) of sec. 29 of the B. A. D. Act; and it is admitted that no notice was given to the Board as required by sec. 35 (ii) of the Act. 8. It was argued that no notice could be given to the Board, inasmuch as the Board had ceased to exist, but notice could have been given to the Collector in view of the provisions of sec. 4 of the B. A. D. Act. 9. I agree with the learned Munsif that there was failure to comply with the provisions of sec. 35 of the B. A. D. Act; and in view of the express prohibition in that section. I am compelled to hold that the Court acted without jurisdiction in executing the decree. If the execution proceedings were entertained without jurisdiction by the Court, it follows that the sale was a nullity. 10. 35 of the B. A. D. Act; and in view of the express prohibition in that section. I am compelled to hold that the Court acted without jurisdiction in executing the decree. If the execution proceedings were entertained without jurisdiction by the Court, it follows that the sale was a nullity. 10. If the sale was a nullity there was no necessity for an order setting it aside. The only order required by the auction-purchaser was an order for refund of the purchase money. 11. I can see no reason for holding that a Court has no jurisdiction under sec. 151, C. P. C, to order refund of the purchase money to an auction purchaser when it is established to the satisfaction of the Court that the supposed sale is in fact a nullity. I see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order of the learned Munsif; and I order that this Rule be discharged with costs. Hearing-fee, one gold mohur.