Report No. 86
8.10. Case law.-
An earlier decision1 of a single Judge of the Punjab High Court held that such an order was appealable. However, in a later ruling of a Division Bench of that High Court,2 this view was disapproved. It was held that section 7 has not the effect of converting the sale proceedings into "execution proceedings" and since the Act does not make any provision for appeal expressly or by necessary implication, and does not provide that a person who is dissatisfied with an order declining to set aside a sale under the Act, shall have the same rights of appeal as a person dissatisfied with an order declining to set aside a sale in execution of a decree, no such right of appeal could be spelt out from the section.
1. Hans Raj v. Nirenjan Lal, AIR 1952 Punj 159.
2. Hokum Chand v. Harish Chander, AIR 1959 Punj 129 (130), paras. 6 to 8 (Bhandari, C.J. and Dulat, J.).
8.11. No change in above point.-
We do not think it necessary to disturb the proposition laid down in the latter case.
Back
