1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. Inasmuch as the question for decision is one between the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor, we may take it, on the ruling of the Full Bench in Veyindramuthu Pillai v. Maya Radon 54 Ind. Cas. 209 that the auction purchaser is a representative of the judgment-debtor. But Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code says: 'all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, etc. shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.' A prima facie reading of this section suggests that the questions which are meant to be covered by this section are those which arise between persons opposed in interest in the suit, and not between a party to the suit and his own representative. There is a ruling of the Bombay High Court in Maganlal Mulji v. Doshi Mulji 3 Bom. L.R. 255 to the effect, and we have not been referred to any ruling of our High Court on the subject at all. We are of opinion that the language of the section supports the view taken by the Bombay High Court, We, therefore, hold that no appeal lies.
2. There is no question of jurisdiction or any irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction involved in this ease. The appeal as well as the Civil Revision Petition are dismissed with costs.