IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.NO. 176 OF 2011() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2010 IN EP.100/2006 IN OS.325/2000 OF PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EDAVALATH VISHALA, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.CHATHUKUTTY, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/AUCTION PURCHASER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAMATHI, D/O.SREEDHARAN, POLIYEDATH, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. BINU, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, VELLAPALI HOUSE, BEYPORE, BEYPORE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN FOR R2 SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.176 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of September, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner has suffered a decree for payment of money in the year 2002 and as learned counsel submitted, the decree holder filed E.P in the year 2006. The property was purchased by the second respondent-auction purchaser. It is not disputed that the sale was confirmed and on the request of the second respondent property was delivered over to him. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated May 24, 2010 confirming the sale in favour of the second respondent. There was a direction to the second respondent to deposit the stamp value for preparing the sale certificate and the decree holder was permitted to withdraw the sale price deposited. Learned counsel contended that sale is conducted fraudulently and collusively after 8 years of obtaining the decree in the year 2002. 2. Learned counsel for second respondent-auction purchaser submitted that no request was made in the executing court to set aside the sale under Rule 89 or 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. As it stands now, the sale has been conducted, it has C.R.P. No.176 of 2011 -: 2 :- been confirmed and property has been delivered to the second respondent. Though petitioner has a contention that sale is result of collusion or fraud, remedy was elsewhere as provided under law and not under Sec.115 of the Code. Therefore contention of petitioner that the impugned order is illegal is not required to be gone into in this proceeding. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv