PANNERSELVAM Vs. MUTHUKRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the aggrieved petitioner/Auction Purchaser namely one Pannerselvam against the fair and decretal order passed by the Subordinate Judge Kallakurichi on 31.8.2000 in C.M.A.No.11 of 1997 confirming the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Munsif Court of Kallakurichi in E.A.No.309 of 1988 in E.P.No.483 of 1987 in O.S.No.309 of 1988.

(2.) THE said E.A.No.309 of 1988 appears to have been filed by the Judgment Debtor Muthukrishna Naidu to set aside the Court auction sale held on 10.2.1988 on various grounds, by invoking Sec.47, read with Secs.94 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and the same has been allowed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

(3.) HE further pointed out that if at all the disposal of E.A.No.309 of 1998 by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi should be taken as one underO.21, Rule 90 and not under any other provision. According to the learned counsel, the learned Judge improperly quoted the provision of law and thereby considering the said point, C.M.A.No.11 of 1997, is maintainable in the light ofO.43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and consequently the dismissal order passed by the Sub-Judge, Kallakurichi in C.M.A.No.11 of 1997 is incorrect and improper and the matter has to be remanded to the Sub-Judge, Kallakurichi for fresh disposal according to law on merits by entertaining C.M.A.No.11 of 1997.