M.V.R. SRIPRASANNA Vs. A.S. BALAKRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the first respondent in the revision petition (Judgment-debtor) was served with a notice and his name stands printed in the cause-list, none appears on his behalf. The auction purchaser, who came out as successful bidder in the Court auction sale, is the revision petitioner. The decree-holder is the second respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. Both of them are represented by counsel.

(2.) The submissions made by the counsel representing the revision petitioner and the counsel representing the second respondent/decree-holder are heard.

(3.) Admittedly, the second respondent/decree-holder got a decree for recovery of money from the first respondent/judgment- debtor in O.S.No.605 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai. As the decree was not satisfied, the second respondent herein/decree-holder levied execution by filing E.P.No.7 of 2009, in which the property of the judgment-debtor was attached and brought for sale. In the Court auction sale held on 17.04.2012, the revision petitioner emerged as the successful bidder and the sale was concluded in his favour. In accordance with the auction conditions, the revision petitioner/auction purchaser deposited the part of the amount, to be paid on a particular day, before the said date and balance within the time allowed.