TEPPALA ANNAPURNA Vs. T DASARADHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 2-9-1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Sompeta in E.A. No.28 of 1995 whereby and whereunder he set aside the auction sale held on 3-2-1995 in E.P. No.27 of 1987 in O.S. No.168 of 1977.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioners herein in O.S. No.168 of 1977 on 29-10-1979 which was marked as Ex.A-2 in the order impugned. In execution of the said decree, they filed an Execution Petition being E.P. No.27 of 1987 before the executing Court and the auction of the suit schedule properties took place on 3-2-1995 and the sale was confirmed on 15-2-1995. On or about 19-4-1995, the respondent herein filed an application being E.A. No.28 of 1995 for setting aside the said sale on the ground that the E.P. Schedule property covered by Ex.A-3 sale deed dated 2-6-1975 was purchased by him for valid consideration from 6th respondent in the execution petition. The said application has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, submitted that the learned Court below erred in passing the impugned order insofar as it failed to take into consideration the fact that an application for setting aside the sale was filed beyond the period of limitation. The learned Counsel would urge that the learned trial Judge committed a serious error in taking into consideration a purported decree passed in favour of the respondent herein. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Siddegowda vs. Lakkkamma.