L J GANESAN Vs. MAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.1.2016 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2015 in un-numbered A.S.No. of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Virudhungar District at Srivilliputhur, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal against the order dated 5.9.2014 passed in E.A.No.22 of 2012 in E.P.No.76 of 2007 in O.S.No.1 of 2007 on the file of Sub-Court, Virudhunagar.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the claimant in E.A.No.22 of 201 The first respondent is the decree-holder, the respondents 2 and 3 are judgment- debtors and the fourth respondent is the auction purchaser.

(3.) Succinctly put, the facts are as under: The petitioner has filed E.A.No.22 of 2012 under Order 21, Rules 58(1) and 91 read with Section 47 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the Court auction sale in respect of the petition mentioned properties alleging that the petition mentioned items Nos.1 and 2 originally belonged to one Mariappa Nadar, who is the father of the second respondent and after the demise of Mariappa Nadar, his legal heirs have given power of attorney in favour of one B.Mariappan in respect of petition mentioned item Nos.1 and 2 and the said B.Mariappan divided the said item Nos.1 and 2 into several plots and sold a portion of the petition mentioned item Nos.1 and 2 described as item No.3 in favour of the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated 29.2.2008. After purchase, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of item No. During attachment in E.P.No.76 of 2007, the petitioner's property i.e., item No.3 was also attached and sale was effected and finally, the fourth respondent took auction on 7.6.2011 and he was issued with sale certificate on 8.8.2011. Since, the petitioner has got right over item No.3 of the schedule of properties, he filed E.A.No.22 of 2012 seeking to set aside the sale.