Man Mohan Singh Gujral, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, passed as Revenue Court on 26th August, 1970.
2. The facts necessary for the determination of this petition are not in serious dispute. Sher Singh, the father of the present petitioners, was a tenant under Harnam Kaur respondent No. 3 and she obtained a decree for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,356.02 on 12th October 1964. In execution of this decree the land in dispute was put to auction on 4th May, 1966 and was purchased for Rs. 800 by the decree-holder. On this Sher Singh filed an application under Rule 90, Order 21, Civil P. C, praying for the setting aside of the sale, but this application was dismissed on 30th March, 1967 with the result that the sale was confirmed. Subsequently Sher Singh deposited the decretal amount in Court and made an application under Rule 89, Order 21, on 36th April, 1967 praying that the sale be set aside. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector but the appeal against this was accepted by the Collector. This order was set aside by the Commissioner on 4th February. 1969. The dispute was then taken before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, who passed the impugned order setting aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Assistant Collector and upholding that of the Collector. Being aggrieved, the heirs of Sher Singh have challenged this order through the present writ petition.
3. On behalf of the respondents a preliminary objection has been raised, namely,that the petitioners arc guilty of laches and are, therefore, not entitled to any relief from this Court. The present petition was filed after about nine months and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on the record as to why the petitioners allowed so much time to elapse. An inference that the petitioners have not pursued their remedy with diligence is clearly deducible, and this would disentitle them to any relief. In this view T am supported by the ratio of the decision in Dina Nath v. Union of India, (1962) 64 Pun LR 1014. In this case a petition under Article 226 challenging a decision of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was filed after six months and it was held that an unexplained delay of six months was a sufficient ground for refusing the relief.
4. Even on merits I find that the petitioners have no case. The learned Financial (Commissioner has found that an application under Rule 89 of Order 21 could be filed within thirty days of the date of sale while the application in this case was filed after about a year. This view is not open to serious challenge as Sub-rule (2) of Rule 92 of Order 21 provides that where in the case of an application under Rule 89, Order 21, a deposit required by the rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale. In the present case, the deposit was clearly made beyond this period. Leaving this apart, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 89 of Order 21 provides that where a person applies under Rule 90 to have the sale of his immovable properly set aside, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule. From this it would necessarily follow that if an application under Order 21, Rule 90 has been actually dismissed it would not be open to the party to take the benefit of Rule 89. For this reason also the judgment-debtor could not take advantage of Order 21, Rule 89. In this view of the matter. I find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same but leave the parties to bear their own costs.