YUSUF KUNJU THAJUDEEN Vs. PADMANABHARY NARAYANARU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These were heard together. The judgment in C.M.A. No. 41 of 1988 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in C.R.P. No. 1321 of 1992 and the order on E.A. No. 202 of 1992 in O.S. No. 42 of 1983 of the Sub Court, Attingal is under challenge in the other revision.

(2.) The common Petitioner filed O.S. 42 of 1985 of the Sub Court, Attingal, for specific performance of an agreement to sell, of the year 1975. The prayer was not granted. But the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 12,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from 1980 onwards, charged on the property. In execution of the decree 60 cents of paddy fields in Sy. No. 3769 of Navaikulam Village was sold in court auction and was purchased by the Petitioner/decree holder as per order passed on E.A. No. 153 of 1990 filed under Order XXI Rule 72 Code of Civil Procedure. The Respondent/judgment debtor filed E.A. No. 206 of 1992 under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale stating inter alia that the sale was invalid the sale proclamation was defective that there was no proper notice and that the property had been sold for a meagre amount by reason of the fraud played by the Petitioner. The application was opposed by the Petitioner and the execution court by order dated 31st Jan. 1991 dismissed the application which was reversed by the Appellate court by judgment in the above appeal, holding that the sale was irregular and illegal for non-compliance of Order XXI Rule 72A. Code of Civil Procedure. The execution court was accordingly directed to reopen E.A. No. 153 of 1990 filed by the Petitioner for permission to bid and set off and "pass appropriate orders fixing a reserve price and conduct the sale again in accordance with law".

(3.) E.A. No. 202 of 1992 was filed by the Respondent in C.R.P. No. 12 of 1993 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Sec. 94 Code of Civil Procedure for an order of injunction to restrain the Petitioner from trespassing into the property, claimed to be in the possession of the Respondent and from harvesting the crops there from. In the said proceedings, Exts. A-1 to A-6 were marked and by the impugned order reliefs were granted as prayed for.