P. SUMATHI Vs. K. KRISHNA GOUNDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of the case are as follows:-

(2.) That on 30.11.2004, the Secretary / Special Officer of the Co-operative Bank had sent a communication to the Deputy Registrar informing that he is withdrawing the case in A.R.C.No.83 of 2004 since attachment order before Judgment has to be executed against the said two persons. Thereafter, the said case was adjourned from time to time and finally it was dismissed. The Deputy Registrar had issued notice to the third respondent herein to furnish security for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and also informed that his immovable properties will be conditionally attached under Section 167 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act. Thereafter, the District Registrar had issued a notice, dated 06.07.2005, in Form No.9 to execute the decree award amount and brought the immovable properties belonging to the third respondent and his wife Sumathi / appellant herein for auction on 22.07.2005. Thereafter, the appellant had preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.102 of 2005, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, challenging the said sale notice, dated 06.07.2005. In the meantime, the auction purchaser K.Krishna Gounder / first respondent herein had filed an execution application in E.A.No.61 of 2006 in E.P.No.2 of 2004 in Surcharge Order No.14 of 2004, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, and prayed for delivery of possession through the Commissioner of Court by issuing warrant for effecting delivery of possession.

(3.) The learned Principal District Judge, by Judgment and Decree, dated 21.08.2012, had dismissed the appeal in C.M.A.No.102 of 2005, observing that the appellant had received sale notice, on 12.07.2005, however, she had not chosen to file any application to raise the attachment. Besides, she had also not established that the property was not liable for attachment and hence the amount recoverable by the Bank had been enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- again an order of attachment before Judgment, dated 16.04.2004 was passed. The appellant had filed a revision against the dismissal of the appeal in C.M.A.No.102 of 2005. Further, she had filed E.A.No.221 of 2013 in E.A.No.61 of 2006, before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, to record her resistance and obstruction on the ground that she is the absolute owner of the property and she had also filed another execution application in E.A.No.223 of 2013 to set aside the sale.