Kindersley and Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. In this case a Bale, which had taken place in execution of a decree, but which had not been confirmed, was objected to on behalf of the judgment-debtor on the ground that execution was barred by reason of the decree having been passed more than twelve years before, and of no date having been expressed as that on which the maintenance should be paid.
2. We are of opinion that the exception of limitation should have been taken before the sale. The rights of the purchaser, who is not a party to these proceedings1 are involved in the sale, and would be affected by its cancelment.
3. If the Court had omitted to serve the preliminary notice of execution after one year from the date of the decree, that might possibly have affected the jurisdiction, and might have vitiated all subsequent proceedings. But in this case the Court had jurisdiction unless the decree was barred; the exception was not taken, and it appears to have been overlooked by the Court. We think it too late to take the plea after the purchaser has acquired rights under the sale. The sale can be set aside only on the ground of material irregularity in publishing or conducting it, resulting in injury to the petitioner--Section 3112 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877. And no such irregularity has been shown.
4. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs.
1 The purchaser was not made a party to the petition of the judgment-debtor in the Munsif's Court, but put in a petition by way of answer to the petition of the judgment-debtor. Both petitions were hoard and disposed of together.
2 Sale of land not sot aside on ground of irregularity unless in case of substantial injury.
[Section 311: The decree-holder or any person whose immovable property has been sold under this chapter may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity in publishing or conducting it; the But no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity unless the applicant proves to irregsatisfaction of the Court that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such ularity.]