IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 933 of 2004() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2004 IN EA.NO.256 /2003 IN OS.NO. 242/2000 of ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): AUCTION PURCHASER: -------------------------------------------------------------------- VALSAMMA ANTONY, KUNJUPARAMBIL, KIDANGARA MURI, VELIYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & DECREE HOLDER/CR.PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODANA PILLAI, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, CHEKKOTTU VEETTIL, KIDANGARA MURI, VELIYANADU VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, P.P.MADHUSOODANAN, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, PALAPPARAMBIL. 2. ABDUL SAMATH, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED KILI MALAYIL, PARACKAL VEETTIL THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.933 of 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the auction purchaser in O.S.No.242 of 2000 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha. Judgment debtor, represented by his power of attorney holder filed E.A.No.256 of 2003 to set aside the auction sale on deposit of the amount. That application was allowed by the executing court by order dated January 14, 2004. 2. The contention raised by the auction purchaser is that the power of attorney produced by the first respondent is fabricated and that the said question was not looked into by the executing court. But the judgment debtor has not so far raised any contention that the power of attorney he is said to have executed in favour of the first respondent is fabricated. There are no materials placed before the executing court to hold that the power of attorney is fabricated. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Civil revision fails and it is dismissed. I.A.No.2280 of 2004 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks