SUMAN MALAI Vs. MARIE THERESAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision is directed against the decree and order dated 25.6.1996 in I.A.No.301 of 1997 in I.A.No.38 of 1980 in O.S.No.9 of 1979, on the file of the learned Additional District Judge Pondicherry at Karaikkal, dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner and refusing to grant leave to the revision petitioners to purchase the second item of the "A" schedule property for the highest price namely Rs.5,81, 000 offered in the public auction as per the final decree dated 24.7.1982 in I.A.No.38 of 1980 in O.S.No.9 of 1979, wherein it was decreed that two items of "A" schedule property be sold 14 in public auction, that if any of the parties came forward to purchase the property for the highest price offered in the auction performance be given to the parties in this auction; that if the parties in this auction are not willing to purchase, then the house be sold to be third parties and the proceeds be divided among the parties allotting 1/5th share each.

(2.) IN pursuance of the said decree, by an order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 18.3.1997, one, Thiru R.Ragayyan, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to conduct a public auction and the learned Advocate Commissioner gave public notice dated 30.5.1997, imposing the following conditions: "TAMIL"

(3.) MR.K.Kannan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to the decree dated 24.7.1982 in I.A.No.38 of 1980, in O.S.No.9 of 1979, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karaikkal, referred to above; to the auction notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner dated 30.5.1997; as well as to the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 26.6.1996 and to the objection of the revision petitioner dated 28.6.1998. MR.Kannan contends that refusing to grant leave to the revision petitioner to purchase the property in preference to the 22nd respondent/auction purchaser as per the final decree dated 24.7.1982 in I.A.No.38 of 1980, in O.S.No.9 of 1979, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karaikkal, is illegal and contrary to the very decree dated 24.7.1982. He further contends that the very auction notice is illegal, as the Advocate Commissioner failed to notify the time and place of the public auction and that the mere inability of the revision petitioner to participate in the auction would not, by itself, take away his right, protected under the decree dated 24.7.1982, made in I.A.No.38 of 1980 in O.S.No.9 of 1979, referred to above.