IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 148 of 2008() ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2007 IN EA NO.541/2007 IN E.P.NO.487/03 IN LAR NO.253/87 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA) REVIEW PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENTS:DECREE HOLDERS & AUCTION PURCHASER: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL AZIZKUNJU,PEROOR HOUSE, KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM. 2. ELLYASKUNJU, PEROOR HOUSE KADURVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM. 3. RETHNAKARAN,S/O. VELAYUDHAN, REJITHALAYAM, VALLIKUNNAM P.O. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.148 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order in E.A.No.541/2007 in E.P.No.487/2003 in L.A.R.No.253/1987. It was an application filed for setting aside the sale of the attached property sold in execution of the decree on the ground of the Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor namely the State has deposited the entire amount due under the decree along with the petition for setting aside the sale. The court below held that there are already 22 other cases wherein also the same property is attempted to be sold for the realisation of the decree amount. Therefore, the court held that unless the entire amount is deposited which is due in other land acquisition cases as well, the sale cannot be set aside and rather it has incorporated as a condition precedent for setting aside the sale. I agree with the moral stand taken by the learned Subordinate Judge but I cannot agree with the legal stand taken by him in this matter. When an application for setting aside the sale with respect to one land acquisition case is the subject C.R.P.No.148/2008 2 matter, the court legally cannot direct the Government to deposit the amount due under 22 other cases as a condition precedent for allowing the application. Therefore, the order under challenge suffers from legal infirmity and therefore it is set aside and I direct the court below to consider afresh the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 in the light of the enunciated principle laid down there for setting aside the sale. The court can only pursue the Government to deposit the amount in other cases but cannot legally enforce the same in a case where that is not a subject matter at all. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh consideration and disposal of the same. The court shall not confirm the sale which is posted to 19.2.2008. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps