SUBATRA Vs. C PAVALAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in E.A.No.34 of 2005 in E.A.No.417 of 2000 in E.A.No.380 of 2000 in E.P.No.390 of 1996 in O.S. No.709 of 1978 are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE facts though may not be necessary in detail to dispose this revision, minimum requirements are as follows: One Balakrishnagiri Bai obtained a money decree against one Ramanathan in O.S.No.709 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, based on a promissory note. Pursuant to the decree, in order to realise the fruits of the same, by filing execution petition No.103 of 1986, she brought the properties of Ramanathan in a court auction, in which one Sankaranarayanan had purchased the property, being the successful auction purchaser. When the E.P. was posted for confirmation of sale, it appears the auction purchaser Sankaranarayanan died, resulting the impleading of the L.Rs.

(3.) THIS Court, after considering the prolonged litigation between the parties as well as the legal position, came to the conclusion that the lower court had committed an error, in condoning the delay as well as restoring the petition, filed by Mr.Shanmugam to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, i.e. probably E.A.No.276 of 1996. In this view, C.R.Ps were allowed, dismissing E.A.Nos.320 and 321 of 2001. Thus, the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate issued in pursuance of the same, reached finality, because of the further fact the said Shanmugam failed before the Apex Court also, by moving special leave petitions, which were dismissed on 10.12.2004. The litigation started in the year 1978, for the recovery of some amount on the basis of promissory note, thus reached finality on record, as stated above. But, the parties interested in the properties have not satisfied, and once again, the case is reagitated by the purchaser of the property, from Shanmugam, who lost the battle, even before the Apex Court.