V JEGANNATHA CHETTIAR Vs. KASTHURI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the decree holder, who had obtained a decree against the first respondent for money. The petitioner had filed an Execution Petition to execute the said decree by seeking attachment of the sale of the property owned by the first respondent.

(2.) Even during the pendency of the suit, the Trial Court had granted an order of attachment of the property in I.A.No.1362 of 1996. While, the Execution Petition was pending and the attachment was in subsistence, a third party, namely, the second respondent in the present CRP, filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code claiming that she is the owner of the property which was attached and that the first respondent is not the present owner.

(3.) The second respondent claims that she had purchased the property from the first respondent and therefore, there cannot be an order of attachment against the property. The Execution Application No.86 of 2000 under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the Execution Petition was filed by the second respondent. In the said Execution Petition, notice was served on the petitioner, but, the petitioner failed to file a counter and the executing Court by its order dated 24.07.2000, set the petitioner ex parte and E.A.No.86 of 2000 was allowed. The petitioner did not file any application seeking to set aside the ex parte order immediately. The petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.138 of 2002 seeking to condone the delay of 575 days in filing an application to set aside the ex parte order dated 24.07.2000 passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.86 of 2000.