Judgment :- 1. The law, even where it is in conflict with justice, has to be enforced by a Court and so, in this case, I am constrained to dismiss the revision petition, although I have no doubt that the judgment-debtor has a genuine grievance which cannot be mitigated by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The decree-holder in O. S. No. 1713 of 1124 executed the decree by sale of the property of the judgment-debtor, and the counter-petitioner No.1 became the auction purchaser at the Court sale. Although the original decree amount was a few hundred rupees by various payments before the execution of the decree which brought about the sale, a substantial part was discharged and only Rs. 25/-remained to be paid. According to the decree-holder, who is the revision petitioner before me, there was an adjustment of the entire decree by payment of the balance amount after the sale took place but before it was confirmed although, according to the judgment-debtor, as one could glean from the objections filed by him to the execution, he had discharged the entire decree even before the sale took place. The decree-holder moved the Court for setting aside the sale and prayed that the sale should not be confirmed under 0.21 R.92 CPC. because the entire decree had been satisfied. The trial Court felt that the sale could not be confirmed since the decree which led to the sale had itself been completely adjusted out of Court. 3. The decree amount for which the sale took place was Rs. 25/-. The extent of the land which was sold was 30 cents and the probable price of this property, according to the judgment, would be Rs. 30,000/-and even according to the sale proclamation the upset price has been shown as Rs. 1,500/-. Eventually, the sale took place of this entire 30 cents of land for Rs. 25/-. This statement of facts is eloquent enough to bring out the misfortune to the judgment debtor of the entire transaction. But the Court is helpless in this situation because, as is pointed out by the auction purchaser, the judgment-debtor could have discharged the decree even before the sale took place or at least could have moved under 0.21 R.89 CPC. and paid this small sum of money and got the sale set aside. But the Court is helpless in this situation because, as is pointed out by the auction purchaser, the judgment-debtor could have discharged the decree even before the sale took place or at least could have moved under 0.21 R.89 CPC. and paid this small sum of money and got the sale set aside. He and the decree-holder adjusted the decree out of Court probably under a thoroughly wrong impression about the law which has brought about a disaster. A property worth a thousand times Rs. 25/- has now been purchased by the auction-purchaser for Rs. 25/-. But the remedy in such a situation has to be pursued not in the manner the decree-holder has done or the judgment-debtor has failed to do. I am not concerned here with how to redress the situation but as to whether the present Civil Revision Petition has any merit in law. 4. In this case, the sale having taken place, the rights of the auction purchaser, a third party, have intervened. Thereafter, any adjustment between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor by which the decree is fully satisfied cannot affect the operation of 0.21 R.92 CPC. under which provision the Court is bound to confirm the sale if there is no application filed and allowed under 0.21 R.89, 90 or 91. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to consider the same point in a ruling reported in Nanhelal v. Umrao Singh (AIR. 1931 PC. 33). The head-note, which brings out the point decided, may be usefully extracted: "An adjustment between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor come to at any time before confirmation of an execution sale cannot nullify the decree, by taking away the very foundation of the Court's power to execute the decree, viz., the existence of a decree capable of execution. Order 21, R.2, which provides for certification of an adjustment come to out of Court clearly contemplates a stage in the execution proceedings when the matter lies only between the judgment-debtor and the decree holder, and when no other interests have come into being. When once a sale has been effected a third party's interest intervenes, and there is nothing in this ruling to suggest that it is to be disregarded. When once a sale has been effected a third party's interest intervenes, and there is nothing in this ruling to suggest that it is to be disregarded. Therefore after a sale is duly held, the Court cannot refuse to confirm the sale on the ground that the decree-holder and judgment-debtor say that the decree has been satisfied out of Court " To the same effect is the decision in Gulab Singh Man Singh v. Kishan Singh Man Singh (AIR. 1934 Lahore 508) and Rambhau Vithalrao Dangre v. Nagarmal Jitmal Potdar (AIR. (35) 1948 Nagpur 94). This being the settled law, notwithstanding the tragedy that has taken place, I am constrained to refuse relief. The District Judge having applied the correct law the only course that I can resort to is to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition, which I do. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. 5. But this dismissal will, in no way, preclude the judgment-debtor or the decree-holder proceeding to see if justice could be vindicated by proceeding either under S.47 or under S.151 CPC. or otherwise. Dismissed.