Ghosh and Gordon, JJ.
1. This was a rule calling upon the opposite side, the purchaser at an execution sale, to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Bhagulpur confirming the sale should not be set aside.
2. The Judge has found, in concurrence with the Munsif, that the judgment-debtor had a 2-annas and odd gundas share in taluk Bullubhpur and Singpur, which contains an area of 1,839 acres of land, but that in the sale proclamation the area was put down as 5 bighas : that the sale proclamation was not stuck up at the Collector's Office; that the proclamation of sale at the village has not been properly proved, and that the price realized at the sale (Rs. 375) is inadequate. But he is of opinion that there is no direct proof (for that is how we understand his judgment) that the inadequacy of price was due to the irregularities; and in this view he has held that the sale should be affirmed, relying, upon among others, the well-known case of Macnaghten v. Mahabir Pershad Singh I.L.R. 9 Cal. 656.
3. The learned Advocate-General in support of the rule has contended that the District Judge has fallen into a serious mistake in holding that there must be direct proof of the inadequacy of price being occasioned by the irregularities, and that, as held in the case of Gur Buksh Lall v. Jawahir Singh I.L.R. 20 Cal. 599, the relative cause and effect between a proved material irregularity and inadequacy of price may either be established by direct evidence, or may be inferred from circumstances. He has further contended that the Judge has not considered whether the sale was not altogether bad by reason of the sale notifications having not been published or proved to have been published.
4. If the case had come up before us in appeal we should have perhaps been prepared to say that the contention of the Advocate-General was correct.
5. But then the question is, whether it is competent to us to interfere with the order of the District Judge under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
6. What the Judge was called upon to determine on the appeal before him was, whether the sale was a good or bad sale. He has held the sale to be good. He had full jurisdiction to determine this question, one way or the other; and we are unable to say that, in the decision he has arrived at, he has in any way acted without jurisdiction, or, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, he has acted illegally. All that can possibly be said is, that the Judge has committed errors in law, but we cannot say that in that respect he has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
7. Upon this ground we are unable to interfere with the order of the District Judge; the result being that this rule will be discharged, but without costs.