JUDGMENT R.R. Misra, J. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th September 1980 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Bailia, The relevant facts giving rise to it are as follows: The decree-holder Appellant had obtained a money decree against the judgment debtor Respondent. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of certain plots belonging to the judgment-debtor whereupon an objection u/s 47 of the CPC was filed by the judgment-debtor on 4th December 1975. It was claimed by the judgment-debtor that he was entitled to the benefits of the U.P. Rural Weaker Sections (Moratorium on Recovery of Debts) Act, 1975. The Execution Court was of the opinion that the judgment-debtor had not been able to establish his claim under the aforesaid Act and on that view it rejected the application u/s 47 of the CPC by its order dated 13th May 1976. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings on the application of the judgment-debtor the attached plots in question were sold at a public auction held on 6th April 1976 and the decree-holder Appellant himself purchased the same. The said sale was lateron confirmed by the Execution Court vide its order dated 14th May 1976. 2. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Execution Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, Act No. 51 of 1975 was repealed by the U.P. Debt Relief Ordinance III of 1977 which came into force on 21st February 1977. The said appeal was decided by the First Additional District Judge, Bailia, by his order dated 5th May 1977. He allowed the appeal of the Appellant and set aside the order of the Execution Court with direction that the execution proceedings against the Appellant remained stayed for a period of one year with effect from 21st February 1977. The appellate court also allowed the application of the judgment-debtor u/s 47 of the CPC for stay of recovery of debt and stayed the execution as required by the provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment dated 5th May 1977 passed by the lower appellate court, the decree-holder preferred a second appeal before this Court This second appeal was registered as Execution Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1977 and was ultimately decided by this Court on 4th October 1978. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment dated 5th May 1977 passed by the lower appellate court, the decree-holder preferred a second appeal before this Court This second appeal was registered as Execution Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1977 and was ultimately decided by this Court on 4th October 1978. The judgment of the High Court is also reported in Sita Ram v. Chandra Bhan Misra, 1978 ALJ 1152 and it is not necessary for the purposes of this appeal to refer to the various dates when the Act and the Ordinance came into force. The High Court by its judgment dated 4th October 1978 upheld the judgment passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bailia and the second appeal was dismissed with a clarification that stay which was passed u/s 3 of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 is deemed to be continued by virtue of the provisions of Section 36(2) of U.P. Debt Relief Act, 1977. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid Execution Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1977 in the High Court, the judgment-debtor, however, moved an application dated 20th December 1977 for restitution u/s 144 of the CPC in the court of Civil Judge, Baillie on the allegations that objections of the judgment-debtor u/s 47 of the CPC for stay of execution proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 were rejected. It was further alleged that on appeal preferred against that order, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the Execution Court passed on 5th May 1977 and it was held that the judgment-debtor was a "small farmer" within the meaning of Section 2(11) of U.P. Debt Relief Act of 1977, and as such is a protected debtor. He accordingly allowed the application of the judgment-debtor for the stay of the execution proceedings. It was further alleged by the judgment-debtor in the stay application that in the execution of the decree of the original suit the decree-holder himself purchased the property in pursuance of the court auction and also obtained possession on 29th May 1976. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 28th March 1979 held that Section 144 of the CPC was not applicable to the case and it, therefore, rejected the application of the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 28th March 1979 held that Section 144 of the CPC was not applicable to the case and it, therefore, rejected the application of the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the trial court, the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court. It was argued by the judgment-debtor before the lower appellate court that he is entitled to restitution u/s 144 of the CPC because the sale which took place in favour of the decree-holder was null and void being contrary to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975. The further submission made on behalf of the judgment-debtor was that since the objection preferred u/s 47 of the CPC was pending before the Execution Court, the Execution Court was not competent to confirm the sale in question. It is pertinent to note that the controversy regarding the continuance of the stay order has already been decided by this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1977. Thus the result is that the Execution Court was not competent to confirm the sale in view of the continuance of the aforesaid stay order and the pungency of the objection preferred u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate court accepted the contentions of the judgment-debtor and allowed his appeal. As regards mesne profits, the lower appellate court took the view that since the decree obtained by the decree-holder against the judgment-debtor in the original suit still exist and no determination of the debt as contemplated by Section 17 of U.P. Debt Relief Act has yet been placed, there arise no question of award of manse profits. 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment dated 30th September 1980 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Billie, the decree-holder has preferred the above second appeal which has been admitted by this Court on the substantial question of law to the effect as to whether the sale which had already been confirmed could be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Admittedly at the auction sale the decree-holder had purchased the property in question. The question is what happens if at an intermediate stage pursuant to the decree of the trial court the attached property is sold and purchased by the decree holder himself. 6. Admittedly at the auction sale the decree-holder had purchased the property in question. The question is what happens if at an intermediate stage pursuant to the decree of the trial court the attached property is sold and purchased by the decree holder himself. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Another Vs. Devi Sahai and Others, AIR 1982 SC 989 and it took the view which is as under: Ordinarily, if the auction purchaser is an outsider or a stranger and if the execution of the decree was not stayed of which he may have assured himself by appropriate enquiry, the court auction held and sale confirmed and resultant sale certificate having been issued would protect him even if the decree In execution of which the auction sale has been held is set aside. This proceeds on the footing that the enquiry in favour of the stranger should be protected and the situation is occasionally reached on account of default on the part of the judgment debtor not obtaining stay of the execution of the decree during the tendency of the appeal. But what happens if the auction purchaser is the decree holder himself ? In our opinion, the situation would materially alter and this decree holder auction purchaser should not be entitled to any protection. At any rate, when he proceeds with the execution he is aware of the fact that an appeal against the original decree is pending. He is aware of the fact that the resultant situation may emerge where the appeal may be allowed and the decree which he seeks to execute may be set aside. He cannot force the pace by executing the decree taking advantage of the economic disability of a judgment debtor in a money decree and make the situation irreversible to the utter disadvantage of the judgment debtor who wins the battle and loses the war. Therefore, where the auction purchaser is none other than the decree holder who by pointing out that there is no bidder at the auction, for a nominal sum purchases the property, to wit, in this case for a final decree for Rs. 500/-. Motile purchased the property for Rs. Therefore, where the auction purchaser is none other than the decree holder who by pointing out that there is no bidder at the auction, for a nominal sum purchases the property, to wit, in this case for a final decree for Rs. 500/-. Motile purchased the property for Rs. 300/-, an atrocious situation, and yet by a technicality he wants to protect himself to such an auction purchaser who is not a stranger and who is none other than the decree holder, the Court should not lend its assistance. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in the present case the decree-holder who was the auction purchaser himself could not be protected and the sale which took place under the facts and circumstances of the case was liable to be set aside. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the decree-holder deserves to be dismissed. 8. This leaves us with the cross-objection filed by the judgment-debtor in the appeal regarding award of mesne profits. The lower appellate court has declined to pass a decree for mesne profits on the view that the decree obtained by the decree-holder still subsists and determination of the debt u/s 17 of the U.P. Debt Relief Act 1977 has not yet taken place. Section 21 of the U.P. Debt Relief Act 1977 reads as follows: 21. Excess amount of debt to be discharged (1) Every debt in excess of the amount determined u/s 19 to be payable by a small farmer shall with effect from the date of such determination, stand discharged and shall not be recoverable. (2) Every debt payable by a farmer on the date of commencement of this Act in respect of which no application is made u/s 17 shall, on the expiry of the period referred to in Sub-section (1) of that section and subject to the provisions of Section 33, stand discharged and shall not be recoverable. 9. In the present case, the provisions of Sub-clause (1) of Section 21 are not applicable. Sub-clause (2) thereof was added by Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1979. 9. In the present case, the provisions of Sub-clause (1) of Section 21 are not applicable. Sub-clause (2) thereof was added by Section 14 of U.P. Act No. 2 of 1979. A bare reading of the said provision shows that if no applica tion is made either by the debtor or by the creditor as contemplated by Section 17 of the U.P. Debt Relief Act then on the expiry of two years, the period referred to in Sub-clause (1) of Section 17 of the said Act, the debt payable by a small farmer stands discharged and shall not be recoverable. It appears that the lower appellate court had omitted to take notice of the aforesaid addition of Clause (2) to Section 21 of the Debt Relief Act 1977 and, therefore, erred in not passing a decree for mesne profits. In my opinion the judgment-debtor is entitled to the award of mesne profits as contemplated by the provisions of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The cross-objection, therefore, filed by the judgment-debtor deserves to be allowed and the trial court is directed to determine the mesne profits in question. 10. In the result, the appeal preferred by the decree-holder is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the judgment-debtor is allowed. The judgment- debtor is entitled to his costs throughout.