Agauwala, J.This is an application by the judgment-debtors against an order of the District Judge of Shahabad confirming a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Arrah, rejecting an application for setting aside an execution sale. The petitioners property having been sold in execution of a decree against them, they applied on 11th April 1932, to set aside the sale on the deposit required by Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., being made. The last date on which the deposit could have been made for the purpose of setting aside the sale was 12th April 1932. In their application the petitioners stated that they had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,500 on a mortgage for the purpose of paying the decretal amount and the compensation, and they requested that the amount to be deposited might be intimated to them and a challan given to them.

2. On the same day the Court passed the following order:

On judgment-debtors petition let challan be issued to deposit the decree money with compensation.

It appears that in accordance with that order a challan was in due course issued to the petitioners on the 12th. The first part of the challan appears to have been filled up by the petitioners and stated the amount to be deposited. An entry on the back of the petition shows that the amount to be deposited was calculated by a clerk of the Courts office. The amount mentioned was deposited by the petitioners within the period of limitation. The lower Court has held that the amount deposited was 7 annas short of the amount required to be deposited by Rule 89, Order 21, and has therefore declined to set aside the sale.

3. In revision against this order it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this case is covered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rangini Sundari Dasya Vs. Hiralal Biswas and Another, . In that case the judgment-debtor applied to set aside the execution sale and deposited the amount which he had been informed by the execution clerk of the Court was the amount to be deposited under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The challan was in due course passed by the sheristadar and the amount was deposited two days before the expiry of the period of thirty days; and the sale was set aside. Subsequently it was discovered, after the expiry of the thirty days, that the amount deposited was short of the amount that ought to have been deposited. The Court permitted the amount in deficit to be made good and set aside the sale.

4. In appeal the order setting aside the sale was reversed by the Subordinate Judge. The order of the Subordinate Judge however was set aside by the High Court in revision. In that case the decree-holder relied upon the decision of the Full Bench in Chdndi Charan Mandal v. Banks Behary Lal Mandal (1899) 26 Cal 449; but the Full Bench case was distinguished on the ground that the amount which had been intimated to the petitioner by the execution clerk was a deliberate calculation made by a responsible officer and, unless the judgment-debtor had been misled by this calculation, he was entitled to make the deposit. In that case reference was made to Rule 20, Chap. 9 of the Calcutta High Court General Rules and Circular Orders, relating to the receipt of money by civil Courts.

5. That rule corresponds to Part 10, Chap. 1, Rule 11 of the General Rules and Circular Orders of this High Court. Rule 11 provides that a person desirous of paying money must fill up four forms of challan and present them to the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court.

The latter is then required by the rule to ascertain that the amount tendered is correct and, if the amount tendered is found correct, the form having been passed by the Chief Ministerial Officer is then required by the rule to be sent to the accountant of the Court who is required to fill up the second part of the form, and, when this is done, the form is required to be placed before the Judge in charge to be signed by him if found in order. It appears to me that when the procedure prescribed by this rule has been followed by the applicant, it cannot be said that the amount entered in the challan, checked by the Chief Ministerial Officer and passed by the accountant, has been arrived at by the casual act of an officer for which the Court is not responsible.

6. In the present instance the applicants had, in their application, asked the Court to let them know the proper amount to be deposited and offered to deposit that amount, and they deposited the amount which had been calculated by an officer of the Court and which had been checked and passed by the officers who are required by the rule to check and pass it. This case is not dissimilar from that reported in Mir Dildar Ali and Others Vs. Kusum Kumari and Another, . That was a case to set aside a sale u/s 174, Ben. Ten. Act, corresponding to Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. In that case the judgment-debtor deposited a certain sum according to the information supplied to him by a clerk of the Court and the Court recorded an order that the amount due had been deposited in full. Subsequently, after the expiry of the period of limitation for setting aside a sale u/s 174, Ben. Ten. Act, it was found that the amount deposited was short by a small sum. Adami, J., who decided that case in the High Court, held that the judgment-debtor had been misled not merely by the mistake of the clerk, but also by the failure of the Court to calculate the amount due and that the order recording payment of the full amount had misled the applicant.

7. His Lordship considered that to be a fit case in which the judgment-debtor should be allowed to deposit the deficiency and have the sale set aside.

The only distinction between that case and the present one is that in the present case there is no order in the order-sheet by the learned Judge. There is no material distinction, either in the facts or in the principle applicable, between this case and the case of the Calcutta High Court in Rangini Sundari Dasya Vs. Hiralal Biswas and Another, . In Sarjoo Prasad Missir v. Nannoo Rai AIR 1916 Pat 290 which has been relied upon by the learned advocate for the opposite party, it has been held that it is not the duty of an officer of the Court to inform the judgment-debtor of the amount to be deposited for the purpose of setting aside the sale u/s 174, Ben. Ten. Act; and that if an officer of the Court did in fact supply information which was wrong that mistake did not entitle the judgment-debtor to have the sale set aside. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Chandi Charan Mandal v. Banke Behary Lal Mandal (1899) 26 Cal 449 and in particular on a passage in the judgment of Jenkins, J., at p. 459 where that learned Judge said:

In my opinion, it is essential to the respondents success that it should be established that he has been prejudiced by the act of the Court and that the mistake that has been made is attributable to that act. What constitutes an act of the Court must depend on the circumstances of each case. It is clear, I think, that a mere casual act by an officer of the Court cannot be treated as the Courts act. For an act to be clothed with that character it appears to me, generally speaking, that it must be the act of the prescribed officer acting in accordance with the prescribed rules of the Court.

8. Under the rules prescribed for the receipt of money by civil Courts in this Province it is necessary for the Chief Ministerial Officer to scrutinize the applicants challan and to correct any mistake that may appear there. The act therefore of the Chief Ministerial Officer in the present case in passing the challan was an act of a prescribed officer acting in accordance with the prescribed rules of the Court and cannot therefore be described as a mere casual act of a Ministerial Officer. In my opinion therefore this case is covered by the decision in Rangini Sundari Dasya Vs. Hiralal Biswas and Another, . I would accordingly set aside the order of the Court below. The applicants should be given an opportunity of depositing the amount by which the deposit is in deficit and the sale will then be set aside. There will be no order for the costs of this application