CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is disposed of by the following order after notice to respondents and after hearing the counsel for parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was the auctionpurchaser of a building in Chitradurga town at the auction conducted by the 3rd respondent Sale Officer and Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, chitradurga Sub Division, Chitradurga. The auction was execution proceedings taken out by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the House Building Co-Operative society, Chitradurga, in execution CEP no. 1047/74-75. The public auction was held on 16-8-1979, the petitioner paid the bid amount in the sum of Rs. 35,100/- and came to have the sale confirmed by an order dtd. 27-10-1979 made by the 3rd respondent Sale Officer, He has alleged that pursuant to the confirmation of the sale, the petitioner was also issued a sale certificate a copy of which is at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioner did not have to seek possession as auction-purchaser as he was already in possession of the property in question as a tenant under the owner of the building at the relevant time. ( 3 ) THE other facts which are necessary to be stated in this connection are as follows :one Murukannappa, the original owner of the property in question, borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- from the 2nd respondent Society, but he did not repay the loan. The Society raised a dispute and obtained a decree on 27-4- 1970 for a sum of Rs. 8421-27 against murukannappa. Immediately after the decree was obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Kamataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter leferred to as the Act), the said murukannappa sold the property on 29-4-1970 i. e. ", two days after the decree was obtained against him, for Rs. 9,000/- to one K. R. Channabasappa. That channabasappa sold the property in question for Rs. 15,000/- about a year later on 23-4-1971 to one Pathamma who is the 4th respondent in these proceedings. it was while Pathamma was the owner of the building that the petitioner probably was inducted as a tenant and it was Pathamma who was affected by the auction held by the 3rd respondent sale officer in execution of the aforementioned decree obtained by the 2nd respondent Society. it was while Pathamma was the owner of the building that the petitioner probably was inducted as a tenant and it was Pathamma who was affected by the auction held by the 3rd respondent sale officer in execution of the aforementioned decree obtained by the 2nd respondent Society. Therefore, Pathamma appears to have filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of, Co- operative Societies, Chitradurga, on 11-9-1979 i. e. , about little less than a month after the sale took place praying for setting aside the sale. it must be stated that nothing in the statement of facts made by the petitioner in this proceeding is indicative of the fact whether the said Pathamma, the 4th respondent had complied with the requirements of Clause (a) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 38 of the Kamataka Co- operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in making that application dated 11-9-1979 for setting aside the sale. However, that may be. That application came to be disposed of in the absence of the 4th respondent-applicant before the 3rd respondent on the sole ground that she was a third party. Though the order was passed on 15-10-1979, the order was actually issued only on 22-12-1979, to the said Pathamma, the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by that order of rejection, she preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative societies, Chitradurga. To that appeal, only the secretary of the 2nd respondent society and the Asst. Registrar and Sale officer were parties. The petitioner was not one of the parties either before the asst. Registrar or before the 1 st respondent-Deputy Registrar in the appeal proceedings. The 1st respondent-Deputy registrar came to dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties before him on the ground that the sale was bad in as much as there was violation of Rule 38 (2) (d) (e) and Rule 38 (5) (a) of the rules framed under the Co-operative societies Act. In that circumstance, he set aside the order of confirmation of sale passed by the 3rd respondent on 28-9-1979 and directed the 2nd respondent-Society to produce the claims in cep. 1047/74-75 to receive the money presumably deposited by the appellant therein the 4th respondent on before 31-12-1980. In that circumstance, he set aside the order of confirmation of sale passed by the 3rd respondent on 28-9-1979 and directed the 2nd respondent-Society to produce the claims in cep. 1047/74-75 to receive the money presumably deposited by the appellant therein the 4th respondent on before 31-12-1980. Aggrieved by that appellate order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the entire proceedings before the 1st respondent- authority are vitiated as well as the final order passed by him in as much as the same took place and the order was made without notice to the petitioner who was a bona fide auction-purchaser at the public auction held in the aforementioned execution proceedings before the 3rd respondent-Sale Officer. ( 4 ) THE 1st and the 3rd respondents are represented by the learned Government Pleader in this proceeding while the 4th respondent is represented by Mr b. M. Chandrashekharaiah who in turn is represented by Mr. H. K. Vasudeva reddy, Advocate, today. The facts are not in dispute. ( 5 ) THE only question which falls for determination in this case is whether the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar was correct in proceeding to set aside the sale confirmation in the absence of and without notice to the person in whose name the sale had been consumed. The learned Government Pleader has fairly conceded that at no time was the petitioner made a party in the proceedings before the Asst. Registrar before whom the 4th respondent made the application for setting aside the sale or before the deputy Registrar to whom she appealed against the order of the Sale Officer rejecting her application for setting aside the sale. The provisions made under the Rules for conduct, confirmation or otherwise setting aside the sale are in pari materia with the provisions of Order 21 of Rule 92 of the C. P. C. in regard to sale of the immovable proprrty in execution proceedings in a Civil Court. The provisions made under the Rules for conduct, confirmation or otherwise setting aside the sale are in pari materia with the provisions of Order 21 of Rule 92 of the C. P. C. in regard to sale of the immovable proprrty in execution proceedings in a Civil Court. Once the sale is confirmed by the Court, now it is well settled law that the sale cannot be set aside except in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 92 of Order 21 of the C. P. C. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 of Order 21 of the C. P. C. clearly provides for notice to all persons who are likely to be affected by any order that is made either making sale absolute or setting aside the sale. There is no corresponding provision made in the Rules. But reading sub-rules 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 38 of the Rules it can be reasonably inferred that the auction- purchaser is a necessary party for any proceeding that are initiated for setting aside the sale as he is entitled to receive 5 per cent solatium on the sale price he has paid in the event of the sale being set aside. in fact it is one of the conditions precedent that the persons seeking setting aside of the sale should deposit in addition to the decretal amount the solatium as well at the time of making the application. Therefore, I have no hesitation, even in the absence of a specific provision, to come to the conclusion that the auction-purchaser ought to be heard before the sale confirmed in h\s iavour is set aside by the Sale-Officer in any proceedings initiated before him. it is, therefore, clear from the undisputed facts of the case that the petitioner suction-purchaser was not heard and the appellate order impugned made by the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar cannot be sustained as legal. In the result, the impuged order is set aside and a direction will issue to the 1st respondent to restore the appeal to his file, issue notice to the petitioner auction-purchaser and therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) RULE will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Petition is allowed. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) RULE will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Petition is allowed. --- *** --- .