N. VIVEKANANDHAN Vs. AMMAPILLAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the judgment debtor, whose property was sold in execution of the decree in O.S.No.165 of 1978. The petitioner herein was the fourth defendant in the said suit. He suffered a decree for payment of Rs. 14,584.75/- with subsequent interest at 9% p.a., The decree holder levied execution in E.P.No.124 of 1979 seeking sale of the properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. Eventually, the property was sold on 21.03.1980 and the sale was confirmed on 16.06.1980. Thereafter, there was no steps taken by the judgment- debtor to set aside the sale on any of the grounds. Nearly after 29 years, in the year 2009, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.62 of 2009 seeking to set aside the sale contending that the decree-holder himself has purchased the property through the auction purchaser and therefore, the sale is in violation of Order 21 Rule 72(1) of C.P.C. In support of his contention, the petitioner sought to rely upon certain deposition of Gopalakrishnan, auction purchaser, made in O.S.No.671 of 1980, wherein, according to the petitioner, the auction purchaser Gopalakrishnan has accepted that he had purchased the property on behalf of the decree holder. This petition was resisted by the respondents, who were the legal heirs of the auction purchaser and subsequent purchasers from the auction purchasers. The respondents would contend that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. The claim that the Gopalakrishnan had purchased the property on behalf of the decree holder was also denied.

(2.) The trial Court, upon a consideration of the evidence on record, concluded that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. It was also found that the grounds raised in the petition were not only relating to non-compliance with the order 21 Rule 72(1) of C.P.C., but also other grounds available to the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. It was concluded that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the Gopalakrishnan had purchased the property on behalf of the decree holder. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.1 of 2012. In the appellate Court, an attempt was made to produce the deposition of Gopalakrishnan in O.S.No.671 of 1980, but the same was rejected. The Lower appellate Court has also concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up by way of the Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner has not established that the property was purchased by Gopalakrishnan on behalf of the decree holder P.Soundarapandiyan. Drawing my attention to the deposition of Gopalakrishnan in O.S.No.671 of 1980. Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, learned counsel would submit that the Gopalakrishnan has infact admitted that he had purchased the property on behalf of the decree holder Soundarapandiyan.