RAMASAMY Vs. KALEESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner herein is Judgment debtor E.P.No.5 of 2006 in O.S.No.102 of 2002 on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputtur. The 1st Respondent herein, the decree holder filed money suit for recovery of sum of Rs.4,98,932/- against the revision petitioner. On 14.07.2003 an ex-parte decree was passed in the above said suit. Thereafter the 1st Respondent has filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.5 of 2006 to sell the petition mentioned property under court auction sale. In the said Execution Petition initially the Revision Petitioner appeared through counsel and subsequently set ex-parte. Thereafter settlement of proclamation was held on 19.01.2007 and Court auction sale was concluded on 29.10.2007. In the said Court auction, the 2nd Respondent herein has purchased the petition schedule mentioned property for a sum of Rs.7,59,500/-. After deposit of the entire sale amount by the 2nd Respondent/Auction purchaser, the sale was confirmed on 02.01.2008 and Execution Petition was also closed by the Sub Court, Srivilliputtur on the same date.

(2.) Thereafter the Revision Petitioner filed the application in E.A.No.328 of 2008 in E.P.No.5 of 2006 to declare the entire sale proceedings conducted in E.P.No.5 of 2006 is null and void mainly on the ground that the sale was against the provision under order 21, rule 64 of Civil Procedure Code. He further contented that the market value of the property is more than Rs.20,00,000/- and the sale amount was very low. Further the case of the Revision Petitioner is the Execution Court is failed to decide whether the entire schedule mentioned property is necessary to bring for sale. The said application filed by the Revision Petitioner was resisted by the 1st Respondent herein by filing counter contending that the Revision Petitioner has appeared even during trial proceedings as well as at the time of execution proceedings and has not questioned the sale proceedings. After reducing the upset price, the property was brought under court auction sale and by following procedures contemplated under the code of civil procedure sale was conducted and on 29.10.2007 the 2nd Respondent has become the successful bidder.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur after considering the rival submissions and evidences adduced on either side dismissed the E.A.No.328 of 2008 by order dated 22.04.2015. By challenging the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner.