C.S.P. Singh, J.@mdashRam Chandra now represented by his sons obtained a decree against Karim Bux and in execution of that decree had his
house sold. Munir Ahmad purchased the house in auction. Subsequently, Karim Bux judgment-debtor fifed an objection against the sale which was
finally allowed by this Court. Thereafter, Munir Ahmad the auction purchaser filed an-application u/s 144 CPC for refund of the auction money
which had been taken by the Plaintiff-decree-holder. This application was rejected by the Munsif but was allowed by the Civil Judge. The decree-
holder has filed the present appeal challenging the order of the Civil Judge.
2. Counsel for the Appellant contended that as the decree in the execution of which the house was sold has not been reversed, the application was
not maintainable u/s 144 Code of Civil Procedure. This argument would have some force in case Section 144 CPC had not been amended by Act
No. 66 of 1956. Section 13 of that Act introduced the words ""or order"" after the word ""decree"" in the parent section. As a result Section 144
CPC applied not only to cases of reversion or of variation of a decree, but after the amendment is equally applicable to orders also. Section
144(2) bars a suit for the purposes of obtaining any restitution or other relief which can be obtained on an application u/s 144(1). In this situation,
the only remedy open to the auction purchaser was to file an application u/s 144(1) which he rightly did. Counsel for the Appellant contended that
the order confirming the sale and conveying the property to the auction purchaser was not an order as contemplated by Section 144 Code of Civil
Procedure. This argument flies in the face of Section 2(14) of the CPC where ""an order"" has been defined to mean the formal expression of any
decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. The order confirming the sale, and subsequent orders based thereon as a result of which the house
was transferred to the auction purchaser are clearly covered under this provision. As a result of the objection being allowed, the earlier order
confirming the sale in favour of auction purchaser and conveying the property to him stood automatically reversed. Thus, the lower appellate court
was right in allowing the appeal.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. The stay order is discharged.
