Knox, Actg. C.J. and Blair, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree. The decree-holder is one Rai Bahadur Partab Chand; the judgment debtors are persons with whose names we are not concerned. The rights and interests, however, of these judgment-debtors in certain property were purchased at an auction sale held in consequence of a money decree. At that sale those rights and interests were purchased by Rai Bahadur Mahabir Prasad Narain Singh, the appellant. Upon Rai Bahadur Partab Chand attaching the same property over which he had obtained first a conditional decree under Section 88, and then an order absolute-under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, Rai Bahadur Mahabir Prasad-Narain Singh intervened and asked to be heard as the representative of the judgment-debtors in Rai Bahadur Partab Chand's decree. His application has been rejected by both the Courts below; it has also been rejected by this Court upon the ground that a Full Bench of this Court in Sabhapt v. Sri Gopal (1894) I.L.R. 17 All. 222, F.B. held that a purchaser at an auction sale is not a representative of the judgment-debtor, whose interests he has purchased, within the meaning of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. We should have thought the matter not open to any further question. The learned vakil, however, who appears on behalf of the objector, sought to establish that this Full Bench ruling was in derogation of what their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down in Prosunno Kumar Sanyal v. Kali Das Sanyal (1892) I.L.R. 19 Cal. 683 P.C. We have carefully examined that case: what was therein laid down was this--that when a question arises between the parties to a decree relating to its execution, discharge or satisfaction, the fact that the purchaser, who is no party in the suit, is interested in the result, has-never been held as a bar to the application of Section 244. This in no way affects what was held by this Court in Sabhajit v. Sri Gopal (1894) I.L.R. 17 All. 222 F.B. In this case the parties to the suit were the parties to the proceedings; added to them was the purchaser, not as a representative of one of the parties, but as a looker-on interested in the result. Here the question which has to be decided is not one in which the judgment-debtor is any longer interested; in other words, it is not a question arising between the parties to the suit, and Section 244 has no application.
3. We dismiss the appeal with costs.