VARADARAJAN Vs. MADURAIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this revision petition. The application is wholly unsustainable. The petitioners have filed an application under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C, to set aside the sale held in execution of the mortgage decree. Pending the said application, the petitioners filed E.A.No.9 of 1989 to implead certain person as parties alleging that they had purchased some properties in court auction in execution of another decree, which was money decree and that they were bound to discharge the mortgage. When the application is one for setting aside the sale under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C., it is for the petitioners to make a case by proving that the sale was vitiated by illegality or irregularity. The parties who are said to have purchased some of the portions of the properties in execution of another decree are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under O.21, Rule 90, C.P.C. Hence the Court below has right in dismissing the application. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.