RATHNAVEL Vs. BALAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THE judgment-debtors in O.S.No.48 of 1984, on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai, are the revision petitioners herein.

(3.) MR.J.Bharathan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners further submitted that under Order 21 Rule 106(2), no order shall be made on an application under sub-rule(1) unless notice of the application has been served on the other party. He laid emphasis on the phrase "other party" and submitted that the phrase "other party" would denote only the parties to the suit and the parties to the suit are the plaintiffs and the respondents and therefore, the auction purchaser cannot be termed as a party to the suit and hence, he cannot be impleaded in the application filed to set aside the ex-parte order. He also relied upon the following judgments reported in AIR 1934 PC 134, in the case of Chandra Mani Saha and others vs. Anarjan Bibi and others, AIR 1953 SC 425 in the case of Sri Ranga Nilayam Rama Krishna Rao vs, Kandokori Chellayamma and another, AIR 1953 MADRAS 587 (DB) in the case of Varadarajan vs. Mutu Venkatapathy Reddy and others, in support of his contention.