JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. – Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Rai, learned counsel for petitioner and Standing Counsel. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen from judgment and order dated 6th July, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghazipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2007 - Smt. Sursati Devi v. Rama Rai whereby lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal and set aside order dated 24th August, 2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur in Misc. Case No. 39/90 of 1974. 3. Brief facts giving rise to present dispute are as under: 4. Respondent No. 2, Rama Rai, instituted Original Suit No. 55 of 1983 in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghazipur for recovery of L 16,000/- from respondent No. 1, Smt. Sursati Devi. Suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 27th May , 1985 for recovery of L 16483/- with pendente lite costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 5. The decree was put for execution and property of judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 1 was also attached under Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.'). Property was put to auction sale by Court wherein petitioner was the highest bidder of L 28,400/-. Petitioner also deposited one fourth of bid amount as required under the Rules. None filed any objection within time limit seeking setting aside of the auction sale. Auction sale was confirmed on 22nd of August, 1991 and sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner, auction-purchaser with respect to plot No. 1 measuring 1 biswa 4 dhoor and plot No. 2 measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas situated at Mauja Baranpur, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Ghazipur. 6. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Judgment debtor, subsequently, filed an application under section 151 C.P.C. before Civil Judge, Ghazipur seeking stay of confirmation of sale, which was rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 27.08.1991 following Apex Court decision in Janak Raj v. Gurdayal Singh [1967 ALJ 524]. 7. Judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 1, then, filed civil revision before Additional District Judge, Ghazipur who allowed the same vide judgment dated 03.12.1991. Auction purchaser was not made party by judgment debtor either before Civil Judge or before District Judge in revision. 7. Judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 1, then, filed civil revision before Additional District Judge, Ghazipur who allowed the same vide judgment dated 03.12.1991. Auction purchaser was not made party by judgment debtor either before Civil Judge or before District Judge in revision. On coming to know about Revisional Court's order dated 03.12.1991, petitioner challenged the same in Writ Petition No. 2503 of 1993. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that judgment debtor is trying to compromise with decree holder by filing compromise in Lok Adalat. An application dated 13.10.2006 in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1990 was filed by respondent 1 to which decree-holder (respondent 2) had no objection. Said application was filed before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur. It was mentioned that matter may be taken in Lok Adalat for disposal. 8. Petitioner then filed application dated 24.07.2007 in aforesaid Misc. Case No. 39 of 1990 seeking stay of proceedings on the ground that writ petition is pending before this Court. 9. A restoration application filed by judgment debtor i.e. respondent No. 1 was rejected by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur vide order dated 24.08.2007. There against, respondent 1, judgment debtor, preferred Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2007 which has been allowed by Court below vide judgment and order dated 06.07.2009. It has set aside order dated 24.08.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghazipur on judgment debtor's application for restoration passed under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. 10. It is contended that lower Appellate Court has failed to consider effect of pendency of writ petition before this Court, against Court's order dated 03.12.1991. 11. So far as writ petition No. 2503 of 1992 is concerned, we find that the same has ultimately been dismissed by this Court (Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J) on 18.11.2010 on a statement made by counsel for petitioner that writ petition has rendered infructuous by efflux of time. That being so, pendency of aforesaid writ petition has lost any importance whatsoever and on that basis, correctness of impugned order cannot be judged at all. 12. At this stage, I also observe that mere setting aside of ex parte decree does not ipso facto result into setting aside of auction sale made pursuant to ex parte decree wherein the interest of a third person has come into effect. 12. At this stage, I also observe that mere setting aside of ex parte decree does not ipso facto result into setting aside of auction sale made pursuant to ex parte decree wherein the interest of a third person has come into effect. With reference to Order 21, Rule 92 CPC the Apex Court in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and another : 1967 ALJ 524 has considered this aspect and said as under: "For the reasons already given and the decisions noticed, it must be held that the appellant-auction purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the decree had been set aside. The policy of the Legislature seems to be that unless a stranger auction-purchaser is protected against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suit, sales in execution would not attract customers and it would be to the detriment of the interest of the borrower and the creditor alike if sales were allowed to be impugned merely because the decree was ultimately set aside or modified. The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 makes ample provision for the protection of the interest of the judgment-debtor who feels that the decree ought not to have been passed against him. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to see why the judgment-debtor did not take resort to the provisions of O.XXI r. 89. The decree was for a small amount and he could have easily deposited the decretal amount besides 5 per cent of the purchase money and thus have the sale set aside. For reasons which are not known to us he did not do so." 13. The aforesaid judgment would not help petitioner in the present case for the reason that issue raised in this writ petition is not with regard to question whether auction sale must be confirmed or not but, here, in the present case, petitioner has challenged order passed by lower Appellate Court setting aside ex parte decree and allowing judgment debtor's application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. So far as this order is concerned, this Court finds no valid reason to interfere at the instance of an auction purchaser merely for the reason that he has acquired an interest in disputed property pursuant to the ex parte decree and Court's auction sale of property of judgment debtor. Therefore, the judgment in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and another : 1967 ALJ 524 (supra) does not lend any help to petitioner in this writ petition. Mere setting aside ex parte decree would not result in nullifying the auction sale pursuant to execution proceedings unless such auction is set aside in the manner provided under Order 21. 13-A. What I find is that by means of impugned order Court below has set aside order dated 24.08.2007 whereby judgment debtor's application under Order 9, Rule 13C.P.C. along with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 which was rejected by Civil Judge, stood set aside. The Court below has allowed the said application of judgment debtor and directed Trial Court to proceed with Case No. 55 of 1983 by treating it pending and restored to its original number and decide on merit. This is statutory right of judgment debtor which has been recognised by Court below. The mere fact that pursuant to an ex parte order a sale has taken place and therefore, ex parte order cannot be set aside is a proposition which neither has any support of legal predence or otherwise. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with impugned order. 14. Thus, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.