( 1 ) THIS revision, which is directed against the decree and order in C. M. A. 3/62 on the file of the learned District Judge, Anantapur, has been referred to the Bench by Chandrasekara Sastry, J. as he then was, in view of the conflict between the decisions in Kondipalli Tatireddy v. Ramachandra Row, AIR 1921 Mad 402 and Govindarajulu v. Sivarama Krishnan, AIR 1953 Mad 822 on the one hand and Venkatalingam v. Ranganayakulu, ILR (1955) Mad 675 on the other on the question as to" whether a sale can be set aside under Order 21, Rule 72 C. P. C. on the ground that the decree-holder-purchaser had not obtained leave to bid, without the judgment-debtor proving also that he sustained substantial loss or injury. "

( 2 ) THE petitioners obtained a decree against the respondents, in O. S. 43/57 on the file of the District Munsif, Anantapur, on the foot of mortgage. Two houses belonging to the respondents were brought to sale in execution of that decree and were purchased by the petitioners themselves on 20-7-59. The first respondent, Bayanna, moved the executing court in E. A. 405/59 under O. 21, R. 90 and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure for setting aside the said sale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document