IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 CRP.No. 176 of 2008(C) --------------------- CMA.14/2005 of SUB COURT, VADAKARA EA.45/05 IN EP.8/03 IN ARC.1349/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER (APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN EA 45/05 IN E.P. NO. 8/2003 IN ARC 1349/01) ----------------------------------------- KIZHANA KUNHIPARVATHY AMMA W/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR KATAMERI AMSOM DESOM, VILLIAPPALI, VATAKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN EA 45/05 IN E.P. NO. 8/2003 IN ARC 1349/01) --------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, AYANCHERI SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK, KATAMERI AMSOM DESOM VILLIAPPALI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT CO- OPERATIVE BANK, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3. CHAIRMAN, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND WELFAR FUND BOARD, CO-BANK TOWER VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.V.POCKER HAJI, CHETTIAN VEETTIL PONMERI PARAMBIL, AYANCHERI AMSOM PONMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. C.R.P. NO. 176/2008 : 2 : 5. ANDI KUNNIL, S/O.CHATHU, AGRICULTURIST PONMERI PARAMBIL, AYANCHERI AMSOM PONMERI DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.M.MONAYE FOR R3 SRI.M.PAUL VARGHESE FOR R3 SRI.K.B.ARUN FOR R3 SMT.ASHA B.MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.R.RATHEESH FOR R4 SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R5 SRI.B.G.BHASKAR FOR R5 SRI. N.L. KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR R5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, ALONG WITH C.R.P NO. 177 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C.R.P. Nos. 176 & 177 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. ORDER The common revision petitioner in these revisions claiming himself to be a share holder and depositor of the judgment debtor bank namely Ayancheri Service Co-Operative Bank filed applications before the trial court namely Munsiff Court, Nadapuram for setting aside the sale of the property of the judgment debtor bank sold in court auction. According to the petitioner, there were two sales in two different proceedings giving rise to the said applications. According to the petitioner, there were material irregularities in proclaiming and conducting the sale and the auction price was too meagre and very much below the market value and there was collusion among the decree holder, judgment debtor and auction purchaser. The courts below dismissed his applications as not maintainable. 2. I see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the court below. The person who has the locus standi to file application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC can only be either the decree holder or the purchaser or any person entitled to a share in the rateable distribution of the assets or any person whose interests are affected by the sale. With regard to the first three categories, there cannot be any CRP NOS. 176 & 177 of 2008 : 2: quarrel that the petitioner does not fall under. The only question is as to whether the petitioner could be said to be a person whose interests are affected by the sale. As held by this Court in Lakshmikutty Amma Retnamma v. Krishna Pillai and others - AIR 1992 Kerala 373 where a person is not a party to the suit resulting in the court sale, the relief that can be claimed is for a declaration that the decree and the sale will not bind him who is a stranger. The remedy of setting aside the sale is not available to such a person. Similarly, in S.K. Sundaram v/s. Joshy Rajamannar Chettiar – AIR 1973 Madras 166 it has been held that “any person whose interests are affected by the sale” cannot include a creditor of the judgment debtor who was not a party to the suit in which the court auction sale was conducted. Such being the position, the findings recorded by the court below that the petitioner has no locus standi to file an appilcation under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC cannot be faulted. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the revisions which are accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRP NOS. 176 & 177 of 2008 : 3: