CHAYA INDUSTRIES Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree debtor in O.S.No.238/2006, on the files of the Sub Court, Palakkad, is the petitioner herein.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to be a Company represented by its Director and they allege that a property owned by them had been sold by the Trial Court in execution of the decree in the aforementioned suit, without proper publication and without following the imperative procedure.

(3.) The petitioner says that they had initially filed E.A.543/2011, under Order XXI Rule 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short), to set aside the order setting them ex parte in the proceedings and that E.A.414/2012, under Section 47 of the CPC, had also been filed by their director in her name seeking that the sale of their property be set aside. They concede that the sale was conducted by the Trial Court and confirmed on 05.11.2011 in favour of the 2nd respondent but assert that it is vitiated on account of the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions.