CHELLASWAMY Vs. VINCENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai made in an execution application seeking to set aside the sale in the execution petition filed by the decree holder is under challenge.

(2.) From the averments made and the materials available on hand, it would be very clear that it was a decree for money put on execution by the decree holder, the first respondent herein, and the immovable property of the judgment debtor, the petitioner herein was brought for sale in E.P.No.53 of 2000; that the said immovable property was sold; and that the purchaser has also deposited the auction amount. At that juncture, the instant execution application for setting aside the sale was filed by the judgment debtor by depositing the entire money, calculated as per the decree along with the interest thereon. On contest, the said application was dismissed. The lower court passed the impugned order only on the ground that nothing has been stated as to whether any fraud has been played or whether there is any material irregularity, etc.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on a decision of this court reported in 1991 (I) THE MADRAS LAW JOURNAL REPORTS 409 (AROKIADAS AND OTHERS V. AROKIASAMY AND OTHERS) would submit that when the petitioner deposited the entire amount due under O.21 Rule 89 of C.P.C., the lower court should have set aside the sale, since this provision is only to favour the judgment debtor, and hence, no grounds are necessary to set aside the sale. The learned counsel for the decree holder is ready and willing to take the money, deposited by the judgment debtor as per the decree, and the purchaser is also entitled to get back his money.