Mullick, J.The decree-holders, in execution. of a money-decree against one Bhup Narain Singh and his two sons, brought to sale among others a property described as lot No. 3. The auction-purchaser Rito Singh succeeded in getting that sale set aside by the execution Court, on the ground that the interest of Bhup Narain Singh had been previously sold in execution of another decree and that at the time of the sale he had no saleable interest in the property. On appeal that order was reversed and the sale was confirmed. In the meantime the auction-purchaser had drawn out from Court the auction-purchase money, but when the sale was confirmed by the Appellate Court, the execution Court at the instance of the decree-holder called upon the purchaser to refund the money, which amounted to a sum of Rs. 2,400. The auction-purchaser objected, but the Court thereupon attached his moveable property. The auction-purchaser then appealed to the District Judge, who held that Bhup Narain Singhs one-third share in the property having been previously sold what the auction-purchaser was getting by the sale was only a two-thirds share; that as he had bid Rs. 2,400 under the impression that the whole property was being sold he would be a loser to the extent of Rs. 800, and that he could not be compelled to go through with the sale and to refund the purchase-money.

2. It was argued before the District Judge that the auction-purchaser could be compelled to make restitution u/s 144, Civil Procedure Code, but the learned Judge held that that section could only apply when a decree was reversed and not when an order setting aside a sale was reversed. He was next asked that if Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, did not apply then he should, in exercise of his inherent powers, u/s 151, Civil Procedure Code, compel the auction-purchaser to refund. The learned Judge declined to exercise his powers under that section, because in his opinion to do so would be to compel the auction-purchaser to suffer a loss of Rs. 800. He accordingly dismissed the appeal before him.

3. The decree-holder then preferred a second appeal to this Court; but being of opinion that no second appeal lay, we treated the memorandum of appeal as a petition for revision and issued a Rule upon the auction-purchaser to show cause why we should not interfere u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code.

4. The first question that arises is whether the order of the Executing Court directing the auction-purchaser to refund the money was a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. It is clear that it was not an order coming within Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, nor an order adjudicating the rights of the parties in the suit. It certainly was not made in the suit, nor was the auction-purchaser in this case a representative of any party. It follows that the order does not come within the scope of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and cannot be a decree. It would fall under that section if the auction-purchaser can be regarded as a representative of the judgment-debtor, but, in my opinion, the auction-purchaser cannot be so regarded in this case. Moreover, the question whether an auction-purchaser is entitled to a refund of the sale-money has been held not to be a question coming within the scope of Section 244 of the former Procedure Code, which corresponds to Section 47 of the present Code, see Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Mahomed Basir Chowdhry 32 C. 332. Therefore, in my opinion the order made by the Executing Court in this case was not a decree and, therefore, no second appeal lies to us.

5. The next question is whether any appeal lay to the District Judge. If the order was not appealable as a decree, then it could be only appealable as an order; but Order XLIII, Rule 1, does not make any provision for an appeal against an order such as this. The order must have been made u/s 151, Civil Procedure Code, in exercise of the Courts inherent powers and no appeal lay against it. The learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to set it aside.

6. The learned Vakil for the opposite party has brought to our notice the case of Amirannessa Chowdhurain v. Karimannessa Chowdhurain 22 Ind. Cas. 839 ; 18 C.W.N. 1299. In that case a sale was set aside at the instance of the judgment-debtor on the ground of fraud on the part of the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser and the Court on the application of the judgment-debtor directed the auction-purchaser to refund the mesne profits from the property. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a first and second appeal against the order were competent. The report of the judgment does not contain the reasons for the decision, and with the greatest respect I venture to think that the decision might have been different if the point as to the competency of the appeal had been taken in the course of the hearing of the appeal instead of being taken after judgment had been pronounced.

7. The learned Vakil has also drawn our attention to a decision in Appeal from Appellate Order No. 295 of 1916, dated the 13th February 1917, [Jagdip Narain Singh v. Holloway 39 Ind. Cas. 653 ; 2 P.L.J. 206], by a Division Bench of this Court. In that case the judgment-debtors got a sale set aside and then applied for compensation for the period for which they were kept out of possession. A preliminary objection as to the competency of the appeal was taken but the point was not decided and the case was disposed of on the point of limitation.

8. The learned Vakil has not been able to show any other authority in support of his proposition that an order u/s 151, Civil Procedure Code, is subject either to first or second appeal. The order of the learned District Judge, therefore, must be set aside.

9. There remains the question whether the order of the Executing Court was one that should have been made. In Safaraddi v. Durga Prosad Sen 16 Ind. Cas. 966 ; 16 C.L.J. 83 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the Court could not either u/s 144, Civil Procedure Code, or under its inherent powers order a decree-holder to refund mesne profits in respect of a sale that was set aside. An earlier decision, however, in Beni Madho Singh v. Bran Singh 14 Ind. Cas. 156 ; C.L.J. 187 takes a different view and holds that Section 151 is applicable. Without going so far as the learned Judges who decided this last case, it is sufficient for us to say that the facts of the case before us justify the order u/s 151, Civil Procedure Code. Here money which ought not to have been taken out has been taken out. It is clearly within the power of the Court to correct a result which amounts to something akin to an abuse of the process of the Court and to put the parties in the position in which they would have been if the Court had not erroneously set aside the sale in the first instance, and if there had been no necessity to get that erroneous order corrected by the Appeal Court, In my opinion the Executing Court acted very properly in ordering the refund of the money.

10. Finally, the question is whether the order attaching the properly of the auction-purchaser so as to compel him to restore the money is correct. The CPC contains no provision for the execution of an order for the refund of money drawn out by a party in a case such as this, but I take it that the principle laid down in Jogendra Chandra Sen v. Wazidunnissa Khatun 34 C. 860 ; 11 C.W.N. 856 will apply and that the proper procedure is to execute the order as an ordinary money decree. There is ample authority for the proposition that the CPC is not exhaustive and that when a Court has made an order which it has jurisdiction to make, there is inherent power in the Court to have that order carried into effect.

11. The learned Vakil for the opposite party complains that if the order is carried into effect, the auction-purchaser will be a loser to the extent of Rs. 800; but the reply to this is that at the auction he purchased with his eyes open and if the title does not now turn out as perfect as he expected the fault is his own. The result is that the order of the learned District Judge is now set aside and that of the Executing Court restored. The successful party before us will get costs in the Court of the District Judge and in this Court. The costs in the two Courts will be assessed at a consolidated sum of Rs. 48.