Act ex "In any case there is no foundation for the view that under the sale in the present case pressly states in S 15, Cl (c) that noth treating the auction-purchaser Basanta as a ing in the Act will affect rights already stranger the right of redemption remained in the acquired The rights acquired by the appellant after the sale or in any event after the mortgagee at the sale in question was a confirmation thereof substantive right and even if there was In making these observations Mu no such saving clause under the ordinary kerji, J , was referring in this passage to rules of interpretation no retrospective the facts of the particular case where the operation could be given to the Act for it payment was made after the confirma affects substantive rights It is sought tion of the sale On the other hand it to be argued that the question of redemp seems to me that Mukerji, J , was clearly tion on payment of the mortgage decretal of opinion that in a sale held under an amount before confirmation of sale is order absolute under 0 34, R 5 the pur merely a matter of procedure and retros chaser acquires the right of the mort pective operation could be given to the gagee as also of the mortgagor, that is to recent enactment and reliance is placed say the latter's right of redemption; see on a decision of the Full Bench in the case p 886, top of the right hand column of Jagadanandan Singv Amritlal Sir The only decision which supports the car (10) This Full Bench decision is not contention of the appellant that the applicable to the present case as it re right of redemption remained in the6 7lated to a very different facts 8 6 (1876)4 ChD 33=46 L J Oh 57=35 L T * We are therefore of opinion that the 583=25 W R 92 order refusing to set aside the sale is 7

(1907) 34 Cal 150

California Reports

India - West Bengal

Cases Referring to this Case