Sltall, J. Respondents 1 to 4 and respondent No. 6 are the trustees of a public trust, styled "Shri Tricumraiji". In March 1950 the trustees mortgaged a house belonging to the trust to one Saheba to secure repayment of Rs. 5,000. An action instituted by E the mortgagee against the trustees to enforce the mortgage was compromised, .and it was decreed that the trustees do pay Rs. 3,910 due under the mortgage by monthly instalments of. Rs. 100 each, and in default of three instalments the entire amount remaining unpaid shall become due and recoverable from the mortgaged property. The trustees did not pay the instalments. due under J!' the decree, and in an application for execution by the mortgagee the mortgaged property was put up for sale and the bid of the appellant was accepted for Rs. 5,000 by the executing Court. The trustees thereafter applied under 0. 21 r. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale and deposited Rs. 250 being 5% of the purchase-money for payment to the appellant and Rs. 63 0 . ·for payment to the mortgagee, claiming that in consideration of the latter amount the mortgagee had agreed to "give to them six months' for payment of the mortgage amount", and had agreed in the meantime to abandon the application for execution. The Subordinate Judge passed an order disposing of the execution application and directed that Rs. 250 out of the amount deposited B by the trustees be paid over to the appellant. In appeal against that order by the appellant, the District Court reversed the order holding that since the trustees had failed to comply with the requirements of r. 89 of 0. 21 Code of Civil Procedure, the executing Court had no jurisdiction to set · aside the sale. The High
