S. PARIMALA Vs. A. MAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the objector's revision against the Executing Court's order dated 30.4.2011 made in unnumbered E.A. No. /2011 in E.P. No. 41/2007 in O.S. No. 1485/2006, whereby her objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC was rejected as being untenable. In the course of execution of a money decree, the property in question belonging to the judgement debtors/Respondents 2 and 3 was attached on 19.2.2008. After the attachment, the sale proceedings continued in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the respective Rules of Order 21 of CPC. It is not in dispute that finally the auction had taken place on 14.2.2011 and the sale was knocked down in favour of the 4th Respondent herein. It is equally not in dispute that the 4th Respondent/auction purchaser has deposited the amount on 2.3.2011. It was posted for confirmation of sale on 19.4.2011.

(2.) The Revision Petitioner/objector filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC on 19.4.2011 and the same had been returned and subsequently, it was re-presented. Again the said petition has been returned on 21.4.2011 and it was represented on 27.4.2011. In the meantime, it appears that the sale was confirmed on 19.4.2011.

(3.) The Executing Court, vide the order which is impugned before me, held this objection as untenable, because of the debarring provision under proviso (a) of Rule 58(1) of Order 21 CPC. Since, according to the Executing Court, "sale" had already taken place, the subsequent objection of the Revision Petitioner/objector was not liable to be entertained. The objection, accordingly, was rejected and hence, the objector has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.