1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2044 of 2011 Bulkis Amma :Petitioner -Vs- Thirumoorthy :Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 05.08.2011 passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005 in Original Suit No.447 of 2001 by the First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner:Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy ORDER The order dated 05.08.2011 passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005 in Original Suit No.447 of 2001 by the First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.447 of 2001 on the file of the Court below for getting a money decree, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.447 of 2001 an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005. In Execution Petition No.410 of 2005, the property mentioned therein has been sold through Court auction and the petitioner after getting necessary permission has purchased the same. During confirmation of sale, Execution Application No.280 of 2010 has been filed under Section 47 coupled with Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the sale mainly on the ground that the property mentioned in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005 is worth of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the same has been sold through Court auction for a paltry sum of Rs.5,00,100/-. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the order passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3.Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 as well as the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005, every stage notice has been sent to the judgment debtor/respondent and he has not taken care to make his appearance and twice the property in question has been brought for sale through Court auction for a sum of Rs.5,00,100/- and nobody has come forward to purchase the same and after getting necessary permission the revision petitioner/judgment holder/plaintiff has purchased the property in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 question for a sum of Rs.5,00,100/- and even though in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 it is stated to the effect that the property in question is worth of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, no document has been filed and under the said circumstances Execution Application No.280 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed, but the Court below without considering the main stand taken in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 and also without considering the steps taken in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005 has erroneously allowed Execution Application No.280 of 2010 and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5.In fact, this Court has perused the entire order passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010, wherein no reason has been assigned for setting aside the sale in question. In Execution Application No.280 of 2010, it has been specifically stated that the property in question is worth of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. But to utter dismay, no document has been marked on the side of the petitioner in Execution Application No.280 of 2010. Without considering the fact that no document has been marked in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 with regard to the main stand taken on the side of the petitioner therein, the Court below has simply allowed the petition by way of narrating the various steps taken in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005. Therefore it is quite clear that no reason has been assigned for allowing Execution Application No.280 of 2010. Since no reason has been assigned for allowing Execution Application No.280 of 2010, this Court is of the view to set aside the order passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 and remit the same to the Court below for passing proper order on merits. 6.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 in Execution Petition No.410 of 2005 in Original Suit No.447 of 2001 by the First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli is set aside and Execution Application No.280 of 2010 is remitted to the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The First Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli is directed to pass proper order in Execution Application No.280 of 2010 purely on the basis of merits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. Smn RP/02.11.11/2P/2C. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2044 of 2011 28.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/