K PALANISAMI Vs. R GOMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner third party in R. E. A. No. 646/94 having failed in his attempt to set aside the sale under Order XX1 Rule 72 r/w 90 C. P. C. concurrently, before the courts below has preferred this C. R. P.

(2.) THE same petitioner third party, in R. E. A. No. 412 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, having failed in his attempt, concurrently before the courts below, to declare the attachment dated 19. 8. 1993 on the petition mentioned property; is illegal, void, not binding on the petitioner, has preferred this C. M. S. A. , challenging the orders of the courts below.

(3.) THE first respondent in both the cases as plaintiff, has filed the suit O. S. No. 19/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, for recovery of certain amount against the second respondent/defendant. The second respondent/ defendant remained exparte, resulting a decree in O. S. No. 19/93 as prayed for. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the first respondent, she filed an execution petition against the judgment debtor in R. E. P. No. 209/93, in which the petition mentioned property has been attached on 19. 8. 1993. In the execution proceedings also, even after the attachment, since the judgment debtor/second respondent has not paid the amount, the property was ordered to be sold in the court auction and accordingly in the court auction held on 16. 6. 1994, the third respondent, who is none else than the husband of the decree holder, appears to have purchased the property though the decree holder had obtained permission to bid and set off.