K. VIVEKANANDAN Vs. N. VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession part from means profit. Preliminary decree for partition of plaintiff's 1/7th share was passed by Judgment dated 28.07.2000.

(2.) THE plaintiff/first respondent herein filed I.A. No. 3088 of 2001 in O.S. No. 5429 of 1993, under Order 26 Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking passing of final decree by effecting partition by metes and bounds through appointment of Commissioner and for separate possession of his 1/7th share. The Court appointed Mr. Kishore Kumar to sell the property by Court auction and this sale was cancelled by the Court. Thereafter, the Court has appointed Mr. T.N. Murali Mohan, by the order dated 01.08.2013 to sell the suit property in public auction. The Advocate Commissioner conducted auction proceedings on 09.11.2013 and filed the report stating that one Vivekanandan, S/o. Kadavul Chettiar was the highest bidder. Memo of objection was filed by the first defendant/second respondent herein and it was recorded. Accepting the objections, the Court passed the order that the sale conducted on 09.11.2013, by the Advocate Commissioner, Mr. T.N. Murali Mohan in respect of the suit property stands cancelled. This order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the third party/auction purchaser.

(3.) IT is contended that the revision petitioner has no locus standi to file the revision petition as the sale in favour of him has not been confirmed by the Court and that he has not acquired any sort of interest in the immovable property auctioned. This contention cannot be accepted as the revision petitioner has participated in the auction proceedings and he has paid the entire sale consideration, though it is claimed to be an outdated payment of money. Therefore, the auction purchaser has every right to challenge the cancellation of sale and as an affected party, he has right to challenge the cancellation of sale, even though the sale is not confirmed in favour of him.