S.G. Sale, J.

1. The only point remaining to be determined is as towhether in the circumstances I ought to make an order for possession to begiven to the purchaser. The question depends on whether a purchaser from aReceiver is entitled to be put in the same position as a purchaser at a sale bythe Registrar, or at an execution sale under the provisions of the CivilProcedure Code. A sale by the Registrar is made under an order of the Court,and is binding on all parties to the suit. So is a sale by a Receiver. In whatparticular, then, does it differ from a sale by the Registrar In the case ofChandra Nath Biswas v. Biswa Nath Biswas 6 B.L.R. 492 it appears that anapplication was made by a Receiver to compel a defaulting purchaser to come inand complete his purchase. The learned Judge (MACPHERSON, J.) held that theapplication was irregular in form and dismissed it, but in the course of hisjudgment he made observations which seem to show that he considered that a saleby a Receiver stood on a different footing from a sale by the Registrar. Ifthat were so, and if a sale by a Receiver under an order of Court differs in norespect from a private sale, a purchaser at a Receivers sale can only obtainpossession adversely by a suit for possession against any person withholdingpossession, even though such person should be a party to the suit and bound bythe order for sale, and by it concluded and estopped from making any defence.But there are cases in this Court in which sales by a Receiver have beenregarded as sales by the Court, and orders for possession have been obtained bythe purchasers under the Code. In one instance where property was attached inthe hands of a Receiver, the Court ordered the property to be sold by theReceiver instead of by the Sheriff, and the subsequent proceedings wereprecisely similar to those which take place in an execution sale by theSheriff: Pertab Chunder Johurry v. Bhoobun Mohun Neogy, Suit No. 144 of 1884,order dated 30th July 1888.

2. In another case, a mortgage suit, the Receiver, insteadof the Registrar, was ordered to sell the property comprised in the mortgage,viz., a family dwelling-house in the occupation of the defendant, who was thewidow and executrix of the deceased proprietor. After the sale, an order wasobtained by the purchaser on notice, that a conveyance be executed by theRegistrar for and in the name of the defendant, and that the Sheriff do in themanner provided for by Section 318 of the Code deliver over possession to thepurchaser: Herumbo Chunder Haldar v. Mohaluckhy Dossee Suit No. 100 of 1883,order dated 8th December 1888.

3. A similar order was made in an administration suit inwhich the Receiver appointed in the suit, instead of the Registrar, wasdirected to sell. In that case, on the application of the purchaser, an orderwas made confirming the sale and directing possession to be given to thepurchaser. This was followed by an order directing the Sheriff to put thepurchaser in possession : Suit No. 27 of 1889, orders of 29th August 1889 and22nd November 1889. In another case, an administration suit, in which propertywas sold by the Receiver under a decree of Court, an order was made, under theprovisions of the Code, for the execution of the conveyance by the parties tothe suit, or, if they should fail to comply with the order, by the Registrarfor them and in their names: Broughton v. A shroffooddeen Ahmed Suit No. 694 of1879, order dated 12th September 1893.

4. In Suit No. 118 of 1884, Roy Chund Dutt v. Sham LallSoor, a sale by a Receiver was treated as a sale by the Court, and acertificate of sale was granted by an order, dated 6th May 1885.

5. These are unreported cases, a note of which has beenfurnished by the Registrar.

6. They show that sales by Receivers under the directions ofthe Court have been treated as sales by the Court. And when sales by Receiversare in all essential particulars similar to sales by the Registrar, I confess Ican see no reason why they should not be treated as sales by the Court. Theyhave not, it is true, been provided for by the rules of the Court. Being of anexceptional character, it was probably not thought necessary to provide forthem by any special rules. But if they are sales by a Civil Court in a suit,the procedure prescribed by the Code for sales in a suit would applicable.

7. It should be observed that the procedure prescribed bythe Code is applicable not only to a suit, but also to miscellaneousproceedings, the intention being that it should be as widely applicable aspossible--see Section 647 of the Code.

8. An important fact in the present case is that thisparticular sale has been already treated as a sale by the Court, the Registrarhaving been directed under the provisions of the Code, to execute theconveyance on behalf of some of the parties to the suit. The practice followedin these cases shows that this Court has recognised the right of a purchaser ata Receivers sale to invoke the assistance of the Court in obtaining possessionunder the provisions of the Code.

9. On the materials before me, it sufficiently appears thatpossession has not been obtained by the purchaser of all the propertiespurchased by him. I must, therefore, make an order for possession in hisfavour. This order will supersede the previous order for possession made infavour of the Receiver.

10. The remaining question is one of costs. The partiesagainst whom the rule was obtained have succeeded on the main point in havingthe rule discharged as far as the commitment is concerned. On the other handthe purchaser is entitled to an order as to a portion of his application. Underthe circumstances I should be disposed to apportion the costs if that can bedone. I direct that Mr. Jacksons client shall have the costs incurred inmeeting the application for commitment.

.

Minatoonnessa Bibee and Ors.vs. Khatoonnessa Bibee and Ors.(18.01.1894 - CALHC)