VENKATACHALAM Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff has filed these civil revision petitions as against the order dated 26.04.2004 in E.A.No,425 of 2004 filed by the first respondent/third party has inter alia observed that the auction taken by the petitioner in respect of the E.P.No.130 of 2003 is not valid in law and the same is liable to be cancelled and resultantly, allowed the said Execution Application with costs.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the order of the trial Court passed in E.A.No,425 of 2004 is contrary to law and as a matter of fact, the trial Court has not taken into account that the revision petitioner has got a valid mortgage decree against the second respondent, which will be prevailed over the order of attachment before judgment passed in other proceedings and indeed, mortgage decree is earlier to the order of attachment before judgment obtained by the first respondent and the trial Court has ignored an important fact that the revision petition has taken the property in Court auction sale only with the previous permission of the Court, which was valid in the eye of Law and further observation of the trial Court that there was collusion between Decree Holder and the judgment debtor arrayed as a party to the suit is not correct and the same is without any basis and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote substantial cause of justice.

(3.) ALSO he relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in A.P.V. Rajendran v. S.A. Sundararajan and Others AIR 1980 Madras 123 wherein it is among other things observed that,