RAMAIYAN Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment debtors in O.S.No.86 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE revision is filed to set aside the order of sale held in pursuance of E.P.No.130 of 2000 on the ground that provision sunder Order XXI, Rule 67 were not complied with and therefore, the sale is a nullity.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present revision is not maintainable and sale was conducted on 7.9.2009 and on 9.9.2009, it was recorded by the court and confirmed by the court on 8.12.2009. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no violation of Order XXI, Rule 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure and even assuming that there is a violation, unless the judgment debtor is able to prove that the violation amounts to material irregularity and substantial injury by reason of the material irregularity, the sale cannot be set aside. Further, Even in that event, he has to file application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale and in the absence of any such application, it is not open to the judgment debtor to set aside the sale by filing revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the judgment debtors filed E.A.No.184 of 2009 under Order XX1 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale and that was also dismissed as withdrawn on 8.12.2009 and only thereafter the sale was confirmed and hence, the revision is not maintainable.