1. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor arising out of a proceeding relating to the sale of his property. Shiam Lal had a money decree against Shri Datt, in execution of which the zamindari property of the judgment-debtor was attached. The Court, acting under Ch, 4, Rule 11(2) of the General Rules (Civil), appointed the Collector as the sale officer to conduct the sale. The sale proclamation stated that the amount of the decree was Rs. 3,300, the encumbrances on the property attached amounted to Rs. 2,000 and the estimated value of the property was Rs. 2,500. The property was put up to auction and several bids were made including a bid by the decree-holder himself up to Rs. 2,300 which was followed by a bid made by the respondent auction-purchaser for Rs. 2,400, The property was knocked down to him. When asked to deposit 1/4th of the sale price, the auction-purchaser expressed his astonishment and told the sale officer that ha had thought that the amount for which the property was knocked down included the mortgage money also. The sale officer considered that the auction-purchaser was honest in his statement, and reported to the civil Court that the property might be resold. On the receipt of the report of the sale officer, the Court ordered : 'I agree with the sale officer. Let the property be sold again.'
2. The judgment-debtor appealed from this order to the District Judge, who dismissed the appeal holding that the order had not been passed under Order 21, Rule 92 and no appeal lay to him. The learned Judge thought that the Court had in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil P.C., set aside the sale. In revision the judgment-debtor challenges the propriety of the order of the first Court. There is no doubt that no material irregularity in the conduct of the sale was committed, because the sale offices correctly announced the price as given in the proclamation of sale. We may assume in favour of the auction-purchaser that he himself was under some misapprehension or mistake. The decree-holder who was following close with his bids could not have been under any such misapprehonsion. The learned advocate for the respondent has argued that under Order 21,11. 84 no person can be declared to be the purchaser until the Court itself has declared him to be the purchaser. He relies on the case of Jaibahadur Jha v. Matukdhari Jha A.I.R. 1923 Pat. 525. That case apparently proceeded on the special practice which prevails in Behar. We are not concerned with that in this case. Here the Collector wag appointed the sale officer by the Court, and it was he who had to sell the property and to declare the purchaser. It was the sale officer who had to demand the deposit of 25 per cent of the purchase-money under Rule 8-1. Previous to his making such a demand, he necessarily declared the respondent to be the purchaser. Under our rules the declaration is not made by the Court. If the respondent makes default, the property may have to be resold, and he would be liable to make good the deficiency, if any.
3. We are of opinion that the purchaser is not entitled to have the sale set aside on the ground of any misapprehension or mistake on his own pan, when he was not misled by anything done or said by the sale officer. A unilateral mistake cannot avoid a contract. There appears to be no inherent jurisdiction in a Court to sot aside a sale outside the provisions of Order 21. There is an express provision Jin Rule 92 to the effect that where no application is made under Rules 89, 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. This precludes the Court from setting aside a sale on any other ground. We are therefore of opinion that the order of the I Court setting aside the sale after the property had been knocked down, and when there was no irregularity or fraud, was ultra vires and cannot be allowed to stand. The learned District Judge was right in holding that no appeal lay to him. We accordingly allow this application in revision, and setting aside the order dated 1st May 1930 passed by the Subordinate Judge, send the case back to him to proceed with it and dispose of it according to law. The applicant will be entitled to his costs of this revision from the respondent.