RUKMANI AMMAL Vs. RAMASAMI KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seventh defendant, aggrieved against the dismissal of her petition filed under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely, E.A. No. 575 of 1981 in O.S. No. 794 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, has filed the above Revision. It is not in dispute that the property in question in entirety was mortgaged and the first respondent, to recover the mortgage amount filed O.S. No. 794 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Preliminary decree was passed on 9.7.1979. Subsequently on 8.8.1980 final decree was also passed. He filed E.P. No. 816 of 1980 to execute the decree In the execution proceedings, the entire property was brought to sale and on 5.3.1981 the second respondent purchased the said property in Court auction sale for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. The sale was confirmed of 9.6.1981. Thereafter on 28.6.1981 possession was delivered to the second respondent.

(2.) At this stage the petitioner seventh defendant in the suit filed E.A. No. 575 of 1981 on 6.7.1981 under Sec. 47 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale held on 5.3.1981. In the petition the petitioner mainly raised two grounds it support of her prayer to set aside the said sale (1) No notice was served on the petitioner in accordance with Order 21, Rule 66 of C. P. C. which is mandatory; (2) instead of dividing the property into various plots, the first respondent had brought the property to sale under one lot. The entire property need not be sold to meet the decree amount.

(3.) The Court auction purchaser / second respondent filed counter objecting the petition Even respondents 4 to 8 had also filed counter The trial Court rejected the petition after elaborately discussing the issue holding that the notice was properly served on 31.12.1980 by affixture and the Court satisfied with the said service on the respondent, and the ground raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed the above Revision.