IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 128 of 2008() AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/11/2007 IN EA.844/93 IN EP.117/93 IN OS.117/1989 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: MAMMU, S/O.LATE KUNHAHAMMED, ATHANIKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKUDANGADU AMSOM DESOM, IN OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: 1. DECREE HOLDER NEDUNGADI BANK LTD., PALLIPPURAM BRANCH MANAGER. 2. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR(LATE) KURUPPATH KAYATH HOUSE, CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM DESOM PALLIPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 679 305. 3. AUCTION PURCHASER V.RAJAGOPALAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, "MADHAVI MANDIRAM", OTHALUR VIA., THRITHALA PIN 679 534, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SANTHOSH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.DECEASED NARAYANAN NAIR, KURUPPATH HOUSE, CHERUKUDANGADU AMSOM DESOM, PALLIPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 305. 5. SANKARI, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, THAMBALATH HOUSE, P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. AMMINI AMMA, W/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, "SANKARI DURGE", CHERUKUDANGAD AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R3 SMT.P.S.SHEEJA FOR R3 SRI.C.AJITH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O. 128/2008 Order on I.A. 2092/2008 in F.A.O. 128/2008 // Dismissed// 27.5.2009. sd/-, P.R. Raman, Judge. sd/-, P. Bhavadasan, Judge. // True copy // P.S. to Judge. knc/- P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. 128 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellant is a third party to the execution proceeding. For realisation of the decree debt, the Bank, as the decree holder, sought to execute the decree against the judgment debtor. The property was put to auction. The auction purchaser, who is the third respondent herein purchased the property after depositing the bid amount. The decree holder has already withdrawn the said amount. At that time, the appellant herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging irregularity and fraud in the sale conducted. So long as the petitioner/appellant was not a party to the proceeding, the petition was found to be without any merit. Further, it was also found that no evidence as such was adduced to substantiate the contention that there was any irregularity or fraud in the matter of conduct of sale. The appellant challenges the said order. According to him, some proceedings were pending before the Appellate Authority as A.A.4/94 and the court below has F.A.O. 128/2008 :2: stayed the execution proceedings awaiting the decision in the appeal. But later, all on a sudden it proceeded with the execution without awaiting for the final disposal of the said appeal. This being the main grievance, this Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal A.A. 4/94 within three weeks from the date of the said order. Now that the appeal itself has been disposed of by dismissing the claim of the appellant herein and a copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also enclosed along with the letter addressed to the Registrar. 2. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the execution proceedings without waiting for an order in the appeal since the appellate order is against the appellant. Hence at this stage, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. If the petitioner has got any independent right over the property necessarily the present order will not in any way stand in his way of establishing his right in accordance with law, at appropriate stage. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-