JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The revision petitioner is judgment debtor No.6 and he has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 9.8.2001 made in E.A.No.103/2001 in E.A.No.98 of 2000 in E.P.No. 34 of 1988 in O.S.No. 90 of 1977 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur.
(2.)The revision petitioner filed E.A.No. 103/2001 under Order XVI Rules 1and 2 C.P.C. to issue issue necessary summons to Tmt. N.Dhanalakshmi, G. Naga Pillai and N.Srinivasan to appear before the Court to produce the Original Sale deeds dated 18.6.99 and 21.6.99 and give evidence regarding these documents. The revision petitioner deposited the requisite amount on 22.2.2001 in E.P.No.34/1988 under Order XXXIV Rule 5 C.P.C and the decree holder had also withdrawn the amount. The decree is fully discharged. The respondent is only auction purchaser and he cannot have any grievance. In fact, the respondent filed E.A.No. 98/2000 for delivery of possession of the property measuring an extent of 31,220 sq.ft with build up area of about 5,000 sq.ft. worth of more than Rs. 40,00,000/- and he bid the same in the auction in E.P.No.34/88 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,200/-. The decree amount is only Rs.73,000/-. On the basis of the sale certificate, the respondent wanted to take delivery of possession. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No. 98/2000. But, the respondent was managed to get a sale certificate by playing fraud on the Court and he purchased as benamidar of his own sister Tmt. Dhanalakshmi, her husband- Thiru. Naga Pillai and thier son Sreenivasan by whom a major portion of the suit property measuring 26,235 sq.ft was purchased after proclamation and before the Court auction under two registered sale deeds dated 21.6.99 and 18.6.99 accepting the market value fixed by the Collector under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act for Rs.34,52,200/-. The revision petitioner also gave a telegram to the three persons informing them not to purchase the property since he has already filed O.S.No.1 of 2001 for partition and separate possession of the share in the property. They sent a reply about the purchase of the property after proclamation and before the court sale. In the circumstances, they have to be examined to expose the fraud played on the Court by the auction purchaser who is the own brother of Tmt.Dhanalaishmi Ammal. Their examination will establish the fraud played on Court by the auction purchaser and hence the revision.
(3.)The respondent filed a counter and denied the various averments. The revision petitioner also filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. which was rejected by this Court and against that he preferred a petition to condone the delay of 181 days and they were also dismissed by this Court on 17.7.2001. Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. is not applicable to the execution. But, the petition filed by the petitioner is not a bonafide one and he had done so only to drag on the proceedings to deprive the auction purchaser to take delivery of the property through process of Court.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.