JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner; and Sri M.K. Gupta and Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. These three writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the purpose of reference to facts and documents, parties have referred to pleadings in Writ Petition No. 6593 of 1980 and, therefore, this Court is referring pleadings and documents from the aforesaid writ petition. 3. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.1979 passed by Civil Judge rejecting application of petitioner against auction proceedings in respect to land in question and the Revisional order dated 21.4.1980 whereby revision of petitioner has been rejected. 4. Facts in brief giving rise to present dispute are as under. 5. A firm M/s Mansa Ram and Sons was engaged in the business of Banking at Dehradun, Mussoorie, Saharanpur and other places. The business suffered huge losses resulting in several troubles. Faced with such critical situation, an petition for insolvency was filed by Anoop Chand and others under Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1920”) which was registered as Insolvency Petition No. 1 of 1955. Petitioner Jagannath Sharma, an Advocate, was appointed as Interim Receiver and he took possession of the property of M/s Mansa Ram and Sons situated at Dehradun. The aforesaid proceedings ultimately resulted in a compromise arrived at in this Court on 22.4.1968 as a result whereof on 5.7.1968 the property which was in possession of petitioner-Interim Receiver was handed over to M/s Mansa Ram and Sons. It appears that an Original Suit No. 66 of 1968 (Asha Ram v. M/s Mansa Ram and others) was filed in the meantime before the Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur which was decreed on 31.10.1968. Another Suit No. 29 of 1970 (Smt. Mirganlekha v. Mansa Ram and others) was decreed on 30.4.1970. 6. The decree holders took steps for execution and in execution case No. 10 of 1970 (arising out of O.S. No. 66 of 1968) a three storied building in Mohalla Morganj, Fazalganj was sold in auction in favour of one Ram Kishan on 28.10.1970. 6. The decree holders took steps for execution and in execution case No. 10 of 1970 (arising out of O.S. No. 66 of 1968) a three storied building in Mohalla Morganj, Fazalganj was sold in auction in favour of one Ram Kishan on 28.10.1970. Similarly in execution case No. 26 of 1970 (arising out of O.S. No. 29 of 1970) 26 quarters and open land in Mohalla Pathanpura at Dehradun Road sold in favour of Jagdish Ram Kapoor while 14 shops at Manak Moue Ambala Road were sold in favour of Munshiram on 9.11.1970. The judgment-debtors filed objection to auction sale which was dismissed by Civil Judge on 2.1.1971. 7. Thereafter Insolvency Case No. 8 of 1971 was filed by Janki Das Om Prakash wherein Insolvency Judge, Dehradun appointed petitioner, Jagannath Sharma as Interim Receiver on 1.10.1971. Petitioner intimated the Civil Judge Saharanpur on 5.7.1972 about his appointment as Interim Receiver. The auction sale held on 9.11.1970 in favour of Jagdish Ram Kapoor was confirmed on 27.8.1972 and possession was delivered to auction purchaser by the Court Amin. In relation to auction sale in favour of Ram Kishan in Execution case No. 10 of 1970, petitioner filed an application on 10.10.1973 for setting aside auction sale and quashing of subsequent proceedings wherein Jagdish Ram Kapoor and Munshi Ram also filed their objections on 9.1.1974. Petitioner’s application has been rejected by order dated 6.3.1979 and revision has been dismissed on 21.4.1980. These two orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 8. Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the auction having not been confirmed and before it the application was filed by petitioner and it was also brought to the notice of Execution Court that Interim Receiver has been appointed in insolvency matter and in respect to property in question, hence entire proceedings of execution sale are void. In any case, the proceedings of confirmation of auction ought to have been stayed under Section 29 of Act, 1920 but the Execution Court in proceeding ahead has committed a patent irregularity. Reliance is placed on Mahendrakumar Baishya Shaha v. Deeneshchandra Ray Chaudhuri, AIR 1933 Cal. 561 and Venkadari Somappa v. Officier Receiver, AIR 1938 Mad. 801 . 9. In any case, the proceedings of confirmation of auction ought to have been stayed under Section 29 of Act, 1920 but the Execution Court in proceeding ahead has committed a patent irregularity. Reliance is placed on Mahendrakumar Baishya Shaha v. Deeneshchandra Ray Chaudhuri, AIR 1933 Cal. 561 and Venkadari Somappa v. Officier Receiver, AIR 1938 Mad. 801 . 9. Sri M.K. Gupta and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsels for auction-purchaser, per contra, submitted that auction proceedings completed when the Trial Court had no information about any insolvency petition and in fact none was pending and merely for the reason that formal confirmation of sale took longer time in the execution Court, that would not make sale already finalized liable to be interfered at the instance of an Interim- Receiver who has failed to file any objection within time prescribed in Statute. 10. In order to appreciate rival submissions which basically relate to effect of Section 29 of Act, 1920 it would be necessary to have a brief idea of the said Act. The Act 1920 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to insolvency as administered by the Courts having jurisdiction outside the Presidency Towns. It is a pre-independence enactment. In British India, earliest enactment with respect to subject of insolvency is First Book of Bankruptcy Legislation in the year 1828. The Courts known as “Courts for the relief of Insolvent Debtors” were established in Presidency Towns of Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. In 1848 Indian Insolvency Act was passed by English Parliament but here also it provided for administration of Bankruptcy law in Presidency Towns only. The Act of 1848 was replaced later on. 11. For Mofussil First Enactment for Insolvency was incorporated in Civil Procedure Code, 1859 in the Chapter of “Insolvency” which was extended to Civil Procedure Code of 1877 and 1879. 12. In 1907 with a view to codify insolvency law, Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907 was enacted. This Act of 1907 has been replaced by Act, 1920. 13. Four terms which are of importance and necessary to be understood to appreciate Act, 1920 are, “creditor”, “debtor”, “debt” and “insolvency”. The term “creditor” and “debtor” are defined. Both the definitions are inclusive. Former includes a decree-holder and later includes judgment-debtor, while the “debt” includes a “judgment-debt”. This Act of 1907 has been replaced by Act, 1920. 13. Four terms which are of importance and necessary to be understood to appreciate Act, 1920 are, “creditor”, “debtor”, “debt” and “insolvency”. The term “creditor” and “debtor” are defined. Both the definitions are inclusive. Former includes a decree-holder and later includes judgment-debtor, while the “debt” includes a “judgment-debt”. The term “insolvent” is not defined in Act, 1920 but is defined under Section 2 (8) of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 being a person said to be insolvent who has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business or cannot pay his debt as they become due whether he has committed an act of insolvency or not. In general sense “insolvency” means inability to meet one’s debt or obligations. In legal parlance one can say that insolvency means the condition or standard of inability to meet debts or obligations, upon the occurrence of which the statutory law enables a Creditor to intervene with the assistance of a Court to stop individual action by creditors and to secure administration of debtor’s assets in general interest of creditors. The Statute also allow debtor to apply for the same administration. 14. The Act, 1920 contemplates an insolvency petition under Section 7 which can be filed by a debtor or creditor both. Section 7 reads as under: “7. Petition and adjudication.—Subject to the conditions specified in this Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by the debtor, and the Court may on such petition make an order (hereinafter called an order of adjudication) adjudging him an insolvent. Explanation.—The presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be deemed an act of insolvency within the meaning of this section, and on such petition the Court may make an order of adjudication.” 15. Procedure of admission of petition is contained in Sections 18 and 19, and reads as under: “18. Procedure for admission of petition.—The procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), with respect to the admission of plaints, shall, so far as it is applicable, be followed in the case of insolvency petitions. 19. Procedure on admission of petition.—(1) Where an insolvency petition is admitted, the Court shall make an order fixing a date for hearing the petition. 19. Procedure on admission of petition.—(1) Where an insolvency petition is admitted, the Court shall make an order fixing a date for hearing the petition. (2) Notice of the order under sub-section (1) shall be given to creditors in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where the debtor is not the petitioner, notice of the order under sub-section (1) shall be served on him in the manner provided for the service of summons.” (emphasis added) 16. The admission of petition can come either by a formal order of admission or if the Court directs, the insolvent would furnish security for his appearance as held in Agar Chand v. Prithvi Singh, AIR 1936 Lah. 885 and Punjab National Bank v. Receiver, Karnal, AIR 1940 Lah. 166. When the Insolvency Court fixes a date of hearing of petition, it can also be deemed that petition has been admitted as would be evident from Section 19 (1) of the Act, 1920. 17. Section 20 empowers the Court to appoint Interim Receiver. In State of U.P. Section 20 as substituted by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954 is applicable and reads as under: “20. Appointment of interim receiver.—The Court when making an order admitting the petition may, and where the debtor is a petitioner shall, appoint an interim receiver of the property of the debtor and may direct such receiver to take immediate possession thereof, and the interim receiver shall thereupon have such of the powers conferrable on a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the Court may direct. Where in any case an interim receiver is not appointed at the time of admitting the petition, the Court may make such appointment at any subsequent time before adjudication and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly. Explanation.—The order appointing an interim receiver may in cases where the debtor is not the petitioner be in respect of either the whole or a part only of the debtor’s property.” (emphasis added) 18. Section 24 talks of procedure of hearing, Section 25 dismissal of petition and Section 27 talks of order of adjudication. Sections 27 and 28 relevant for our purpose may be reproduced as under: “27. Section 24 talks of procedure of hearing, Section 25 dismissal of petition and Section 27 talks of order of adjudication. Sections 27 and 28 relevant for our purpose may be reproduced as under: “27. Order of adjudication.—(1) If the Court does not dismiss the petition, it shall make an order of adjudication, and shall specify in such order the period within which the debtor shall apply for his discharge. (2) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, extend the period within which the debtor shall apply for his discharge, and in that case shall publish notice of the order in such manner as it thinks fit. 28. Effect of an order of adjudication.—(1) On the making of an order of adjudication, the insolvent shall aid to the utmost of his power in the realisation of his property and the distribution of the proceeds among his creditors. (2) On the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a receiver as hereinafter provided, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding, except with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (2), all goods being at the date of the presentation of the petition on which the order is made, in the possession, order or disposition of the insolvent in his trade or business, by the consent and permission of the true owner, under such circumstances that he is the reputed owner thereof, shall be deemed to be the property of the insolvent. (4) All property which is acquired by or devolves on the insolvent after the date of an order of adjudication and before his discharge shall forthwith vest in the Court or receiver, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply in respect thereof. (4) All property which is acquired by or devolves on the insolvent after the date of an order of adjudication and before his discharge shall forthwith vest in the Court or receiver, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply in respect thereof. (5) The property of the insolvent for the purposes of this section shall not include any property (not being books of account) which is exempted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or by any other enactment for the time being in force from liability to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to realise or otherwise deal with his security, in the same manner as he would have been entitled to realise or deal with it if this section had not been passed. (7) An order of adjudication shall relate back to, and take effect from the date of the presentation of the petition on which it is made.” (emphasis added) 19. In the present case, it is not in dispute that petitioner came to be appointed Interim Receiver in Insolvency Petition No. 8 of 1971 on 1.10.1971. By that time, not only the suits were already decreed but in the execution cases also the auction sale had taken place and period to file objection had also expired. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer relevant provisions with respect to execution sale in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code, 1908”). 20. Order XXI Rule 64 and onwards provides for procedure for sale of a property while executing a decree. This Court need not refer all provisions since it is not in dispute that auction and sale in execution sale took place on 28.10.1970 and 9.11.1970. The sale of immovable property has been dealt with in Order XXI Rule 82 and onwards. Rules 89 provides procedure for application to set aside sale by depositing a sum equal to 5 per cent of purchase-money for payment to the purchaser and the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for recovery of which the sale was ordered for payment to the decree holder. 21. Similarly order XXI Rules 90 and 91 also provide for applications which may be filed for setting aside sale. 21. Similarly order XXI Rules 90 and 91 also provide for applications which may be filed for setting aside sale. In the former, it may be done on account of irregularity or fraud and in later it can be filed by Purchaser on the ground of Judgment-debtor having no saleable interest. If no such application under Sections 89, 90 of 91 is filed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale as provided in Rule 92 and it is said that thereupon the sale becomes absolute. The obligation to confirm sale is subject to only the conditions of pendency of applications under Rule 89, 90 and 91 and Rule 58 (2) vide Allahabad amendment. Admittedly, no such application was pending. Rule 92, therefore, makes it mandatory to the Court to confirm sale. 22. None of the contingencies, therefore, which prohibits the Executing Court from confirming the sale is attracted in the case in hand. Learned counsel for petitioner, however, placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in Mahendrakumar Baishya Shaha (supra) and submitted that as soon as the Executing Court is informed of the Insolvency Petition and appointment of Interim Receiver, it should stay its hand and should not proceed with execution. 23. In my view, the decision cited would lend no help to petitioner. Therein before the execution could proceed, an Insolvency Petition was filed before District Judge wherein Interim Receiver was appointed. Information to this effect was given to Executing Court before the sale in execution of decree could take place. It is evident from following part of judgment: “An information of the fact that an insolvency petition pending before the District Judge had been admitted was conveyed to the Munsif before the sale in execution of the decree took place.” 24. The contention raised before the Court was that mere notice of pendency of Insolvency Petition was not sufficient for staying sale by Executing Court which was negatived by Court and it said that: “We are of opinion that, even in such a case, looking to the scheme of provisions of the Insolvency Act, the executing Court would not be justified in holding the sale if it is apprised of the pendency of the insolvency application. ...The underlying principles of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as can be gathered from the provisions of Section 52, is that when a Court is apprised of the pendency of an application for insolvency in another Court, and of the further fact that such application had been admitted, it should stay its hand so far as the execution of the decree by the creditors of the insolvent is concerned.” 25. It is thus evident that before the sale could take place, the Executing Court was apprised of pendency of Insolvency Petition and, hence, Calcutta High Court with reference to Section 52 observed that Executing Court should have stayed its hand so far as execution of decree is concerned. In the present case, not only sale was already effected upon by the Executing Court but even the time for filing objection for setting aside the sale had expired and, therefore, the sale having become final, the Executing Court had no option but to confirm it. The mere fact that in passing the order of confirmation it took an extra long time, that would not nullify a situation which has already attained by operation of law. 26. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that sale having already become final, a subsequent information conveyed to Executing Court would not vitiate the sale already conducted. In the above circumstances, in my view the Courts below have not erred in law in rejecting petitioner’s applications and revisions and this Court find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 27. In the result, all the three writ petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. ——————