M KANDASAMY Vs. U BASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Judgment-debtor in C.S.No.770 of 1988 on the file of this Court is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE property was sold on 2.12.1998 and the present application has been filed by petitioner to direct resale of property on the ground that the sale was conducted not in accordance with law and there are so many irregularities. It is mentioned that the sale was conducted on 2.12.1998 and the sale was also confirmed and auction purchaser also made application for getting delivery of the property by filing E.P.No.39 of 1998. It is at that time, present application was filed to have the resale of property and postpone delivery by two weeks.

(3.) IN Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand and Rajinder Singh , (1994)1 S.C.C. 131 in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the contention raised was one of the joint purchasers not made as party to application under Sec.47 read with O.21, Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure. IN that context, Honourable Supreme Court in para 5 held thus: ??The application to set aside the execution sale is primarily against the decree-holder since he is a person at whose instance and benefit the execution proceedings were initiated and the sale was held to discharge his decree debt. Therefore, primarily he is the person entitled to be heard ad since he is in-charge of publishing the notices and to conduct the sale, it is the that lays before the court the steps taken or the procedure followed in service of notice or conducting the sale and to establish that they have been done properly, regularly and in accordance with the law. The auction-purchaser gets a right only on confirmation of sale and till then his right is nebulous and has only right to consideration for confirmation of sale. If the sale is set aside, apart from the auction-purchaser, the decree-holder is affected since the realisation of his decree debt is put off and he would be obligated to initiate execution proceedings afresh to recover the decree debt. Therefore, in the proceedings under Sec.47 or O.21, Rule 90, the decree-holder is the affected necessary party. Though the auction-purchasers need to be impleaded so nominee as respondent as the property was purchased jointly at the court sale, it is enough that one among them had been impleaded as a party. It is not necessary to implead all the joint purchasers.? [Italics supplied]