GANN DAS Vs. PAULIN MORAES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has come up for consideration is as to whether O. XXI, R. 90 (3) is a bar in considering the question of jurisdiction, though not raised by the judgment debtor in the earlier proceedings.

(2.) JUDGMENT debtor in O. S. No. 665 of 1991 on the file of the Sub Court, Trivandrum , is the petitioner and appellant herein. CRP is filed against the order in E. A. No. 84 of 1996, and C. M. A. is filed against the order in E. A. No. 67 of 1996. E. A. No. 84 of 1996 was filed for a declaration that the sale conducted on 12. 4. 1996 is illegal and void. E. A. No. 67 of 1996 is a petition for setting aside the sale.

(3.) DECREE holder filed a counter affidavit stating that the auction purchaser has already deposited the entire decree amount, and petitions have been filed by the judgment debtor only to delay the confirmation of sale. According to her, three cents of land would not fetch the decree amount. It is also stated that judgment debtor did not raise all those contentions before the proclamation of sale was drawn up. Auction purchaser, third respondent in the C. M. A. also filed objections. It was stated that since she had already deposited the entire amount, court should confirm the sal a in her favour. It is also her cause that there is no material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale.