K VEERESWARAN Vs. N SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein obtained a decree in O.S.No.622 of 1972 against the respondents 2 to 23. After obtaining the decree he filed E.P.No.366 of 1978 and brought the properties of the respondents 2 to 23 for sale. THE sale was conducted on 15.10.1990.THE petitioner hereinpurchased the said properties. THE first respondent filed an application in E.A.No.866 of 1990 in E.P.No.366 of 1978 in the above suit on the file of the learned III Additional Sub-Judge at Madurai, to set aside the said sale held on 15.10.1990, and deposited the entire amount within 30 days from the date of the said sale, which is in time. That application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the applicant in E.A.No.866 of 1990 has no interest in the said properties and so he cannot entertain that application to set aside the sale. THE court below rejected the case of the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 23, and allowed that application. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner herein has filed the above revision.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the first respondent deposited the entire auction sale amount within 30 days from the date of the said sale. The only question arises in this revision for consideration is whether the first respondent can maintain the said application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) FOLLOWING the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Paresh Nath Singha v.Nabogopal Chattopadhya, 1901(29) I.L.R.Cal. (F.B.), the Division Bench of this Court in Bodapati Adenna v. Bodapati Chinna Ramayya, 54 M.L.J. 445, has held that a lessee subject to whose lease immovable property has been sold in Court auction can apply Under O.21, R.89 of the Code to have the sale set aside.