ORDER 1. A MONEY-DECREE WAS PASSED IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 72-B OF 1972 AGAINST THE APPELLANT JUDGMENT DEBTOR (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR") AND IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT 1 DECREE-HOLDER. PROPERTY WAS PUT TO AUCTION IN EXECUTION OF THE DECREE. THE BID OF AUCTION-PURCHASER, RESPONDENT 2 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE AUCTION-PURCHASER") BEING THE HIGHEST WAS ACCEPTED. THE AUCTION-PURCHASER DEPOSITED 25% OF THE AUCTION-AMOUNT. 2. THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR RAISED OBJECTIONS TO THE AUCTION-SALE UNDER A SECTION 47 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17-5-1980, THE EXECUTING COURT ACCEPTED THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR. THE AUCTION-PURCHASER FILED A REVISION IN THE HIGH COURT. BY ITS ORDER DATED 2-51981, THE HIGH COURT AFTER HOLDING, INTER ALIA, THAT: (1) THE FIRST OBJECTION THAT THERE WAS NO ATTACHMENT OF SURVEY NUMBER WHICH WERE AUCTIONED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED; (2) THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO RAISE THESE OBJECTIONS WHEN THE COURT HAS ACCEPTED FINAL BID OF THE AUCTION-PURCHASER; AND (3) THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR WERE BEYOND LIMITATION, BY MISTAKE DISMISSED THE REVISION PETITION. 3. AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 2-5-1981 WAS FILED WHICH WAS ACCEPTED ON 3-9-1981. AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR WERE DISMISSED. 4. DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD, ON 14-5-1981 THE AUCTION-PURCHASER WITHDREW THE AUCTION-MONEY WHICH WAS REDEPOSITED BY HIM ON 23-6-1981. 5. THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF HIS OBJECTIONS UNDER D SECTION 47 CPC DEPOSITED THE DECREETAL AMOUNT PLUS 5% OF THE AUCTION PURCHASE AMOUNT UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 89 CPC AFTER TAKING PERMISSION FROM THE EXECUTING COURT. 6. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE AUCTION-PURCHASER FILED AN APPEAL WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ON 19-7-1994. THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT IN CIVIL E REVISION NO. 500 OF 1994 BY ITS ORDER DATED 18-3-1996. THE AUCTION PURCHASER WAS HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND ON 24-11-1999. 7. ON 7-4-1998, THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC FOR INJUNCTION. IN THE SAID APPLICATION AN OBJECTION WAS TAKEN THAT SINCE THE AUCTION-PURCHASER HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT ON 14-5- 1981 (WHICH WAS REDEPOSITED ON 23-6-1981), THE SALE BE DECLARED INVALID. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. IN THE SAID APPLICATION AN OBJECTION WAS TAKEN THAT SINCE THE AUCTION-PURCHASER HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT ON 14-5- 1981 (WHICH WAS REDEPOSITED ON 23-6-1981), THE SALE BE DECLARED INVALID. THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE WHICH HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT THAT AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR AND THE AUCTION-SALE HAVING BECOME FINAL, ON AN APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 9 CPC FOR INJUNCTION, AUCTION-SALE MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE AUCTION-PURCHASER COULD NOT BE SET ASIDE. 9. THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.