K. PITCHAMMAL Vs. V. PERUMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third respondent availed loan from the second respondent. The petitioner stood as guarantor. Since the third respondent failed to pay the remaining instalments, the second respondent initiated proceedings in C.D. No. 58 of 2005. The second respondent obtained a decree and thereafter filed E.P. No. 142 of 2006 for execution. The executing Court without issuing proper notice to the petitioner sold her residential property situated at Madurai South. The property was sold in public auction after fixing the upset price at Rs. 9,58,000/ -. The bid submitted by the first respondent was accepted by the executing Court. The executing Court issued a sale certificate and thereafter closed the execution petition on 29 July 2011.

(2.) THE petitioner alleging fraud against her own counsel and the second respondent besides the auction purchaser filed application before the executing Court to set aside the sale. The executing Court rejected the contention taken by the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks to set aside the sale made in favour of the first respondent.

(3.) THE second respondent thereafter requested the executing Court to appropriate the balance amount towards claim in E.P. No. 52 of 2006. The executing Court allowed the said prayer and the same resulted in closing the executing petition in E.P. No. 52 of 2006.