AROKIADAS Vs. AROKIASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Executing Court dismissing application under 0.21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside a sale held 9.3.1989. The case of the petitioners was that they had purchased the property from judgment-debtor on 19.2.1989 under two sale deeds and they were depositing the entire amount as prescribed in 0.21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The deposit was made on 23.3.1989. On the same day, the application was also filed. The objection raised by respondents was that the sale in favour of the petitioners was sham and nominal and it a fraudulent transaction and they were not entitled to file an application under O.21, Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court has accepted that contention dismissed the application.

(2.) IN an application, under O.21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no question of the Court considering whether the sales in favour of the petitioners were sham nominal or fraudulent. Under the Rule, any person claiming an interest in the property can file an application to set aside the sale on his depositing the amount mentioned in Rule. Here, the petitioners are claiming under two registered documents dated 19.2.1989. they are sham transactions, then the deposit which is made by them can be treated as on behalf of the judgment debtors. If, on the other hand, they are real transactions, then, the petitioners are entitled certainly in their own right to make deposit under the Rule. questions which have been considered by the Executing Court did not at all arise consideration. He ought not to have discussed the matter. Once, it is found that the entire amount due under O.21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been deposited within the time prescribed by law, by a person satisfying the description contained in the rule, Court ought to have set aside the sale.