after the holding of the sale, the decree was set aside. In Janak Raj's case, sale was held in execution of an ex-parte decree. The ex-parte decree was set aside subsequent to the date of the sale but before an order confirming the sale was passed. This Court held that in the absence of an application for setting aside the sale having been moved on the grounds available under Rules 89 to 91 of Order 21 of C.P.C., the Court could not have refused to confirm the sale. However, in this case itself, this Court has observed (at page 80) that there may be cases in which apart (from the provisions of Rules 89 to 91 the Court may refuse to confirm a sale, as for instance, where a sale is held without giving notice to the judgment debtor, or where the Court is misled in fixing a reserved price or where there was no decree in existence at the time when the sale was held. In Sardar Govindrao Mahadik's case, Janak Raj's case was referred. The Court has drawn a distinction between a Court auction held in favour of a decree holder and where the auction purchaser is an outsider or a stranger. In former case on the decree ceasing to exist before the sale is confirmed, the sale may be refused to be confirmed but in the latter case, equity in favour of the stranger should be
