ARUMUGAM Vs. PAZHANIAPPAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The auction purchaser in a Court auction sale, aggrieved by the order passed by the executing Court, allowing an application under Sec. 47 of CPC, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the 1st petitioner, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Mr.Ayyachamy, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(3.) Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the very application filed by the 1st respondent/judgment debtor, invoking the provisions of Sec. 47 of CPC was not maintainable and the only remedy available to the 1st respondent was to invoke Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, seeking to set aside the auction sale in favour of the revision petitioner. He would further submit that the suit came to be decreed on 1/7/2004 and even pending the suit, the order of attachment before the judgment had been passed on 26/6/2004 in I.A.No.322 of 2004.