ORDER
1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned Munsif of Ghaziabad. It appears that one Kedarnath obtained a decree against the applicant, Radhe Lal, and in execution of that decree two buildings were to be put up to sale. At a sale held on 7th March 1933, Mt. Janki bid a sum of Rs. 1,800 for one of these buildings, which was a shop, and deposited 25 per cent, of the price. Her's was the final bid. Two days later, before the sale had been sanctioned by the Court, she made an application that she had bid for this building; under the misapprehension that she was bidding for the other building which was a residential house, and that the value of the building which had been put up to sale when she was bidding was much less than Rs. 1,800. The learned Munsif allowed her application that the sale is could not be enforced and directed that the 25 per cent, of the purchase money which she had deposited should be restored to her. The present applicant did not appeal against this order, but the decree-holder did so. The applicant attempted to make what he called a cross-objection upon the same grounds as the grounds mentioned in the appeal, but that cross-objection was rejected. Ultimately the decree-holder withdrew his appeal which was consequently dismissed. The applicant now comes to this Court in revision and asks that Mt. Janki should not be allowed to withdraw the deposit that she had made and that if there is any loss due to a re-sale; she should make it good.
2. We see no reason to disbelieve the statement made by Mt. Janki that she bid for the property under a misapprehension and that she was not intending to buy the building which was put up to sale. The learned Munsif also believed her. In these circumstances it was open to him to pass the order which he did pass before the sale had been sanctioned by him, and we do not consider that he was guilty of any material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. In these circumstances we do not feel that there is any sufficient ground for interference in revision. We therefore reject the application, but as learned Counsel for the opposite party did not appear when the case was called, we snake no order about costs.