( 1 ) CERTAIN interesting aspects of the law touching the question that often arises before the Courts in relation to situations where an auction sale is questioned and is liable to be set aside have fallen for determination in this civil revision petition. First, the brief facts the petitioner before me is the auction purchaser who had successfully bid for and purchased a property on 3-3-1986 for a sum of Rs. 75,100/- in an auction sale that was conducted in Execution Proceeding No. 275 of 1984. One M. Bhatta had instituted Original Suit No. 71 of 1980 which came to be decreed on 16-4-1983 for a sum of Rs. 19,342. 70 Ps. and it was this decree that was sought to be executed. The property in question was put-up for sale and the present petitioner who is the auction purchaser was the successful bidder. In keeping with the requirements of law, he deposited the first instalment of 25% on that very day and the balance 75% in Court on 17-3-1986. The sale in question was not confirmed for a considerable period of time because the judgment-debtor kept on making applications to the Court requesting for some reasonable time on the assurance that he would deposit the requisite money for satisfaction of the decree in which case the question of confirming the sale may not have arisen. The Court appears to have granted time on numerous dates of hearing and finally on 18-8-1987 the sale in question was confirmed. I need to mention here that the judgment debtor and subsequently his legal representatives carried the matter further in so far as attempts were made to have the sale set aside but those proceedings culminated in Civil Revision Petition No. 5119 of 1987 which was finally disposed of by this Court on 16-11-1989. The confirmation of the auction sale was accordingly confirmed right up to this Court.

( 2 ) THERE is another off-shoot to that proceeding with which weare here concerned. One Shivanagouda appeared before the executing Court and filed LA. IV on 13-3-1986 and he contended that he is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 143 of 1983 according to him the judgment-debtor had entered into an agreement to sell the same property to him several years earlier and he had filed the suit for specific performance. The applicant contended that the property that was put-up for sale was the very same property in respect of which he had asked for specific performance and that consequently, the sale should not be confirmed. In other words, what was contended was that the same property was the subject-matter of the legal proceedings namely Original Suit No. 143 of 1983 and that therefore, the executing Court should not confirm the sale. The record indicates that I. A. IV was pending before the executing Court on 18-8-1987 when the Court confirmed the sale. Shivanagouda thereafter took the matter up in revision which was subsequently allowed to be converted into an appeal and he filed the appeal on 21-9-1988 which appeal was finally heard and disposed of on 31st July, 1991 by the learned District Judge at shimoga. Shivanagouda, hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent' had contended that the executing Court was in error in having confirmed the sale during the pendency of his suit and it was further submitted, that the auction sale was liable to be set aside since he had rights in respect of that property which he was entitled to enforce. Effectively, the appeal court in a relatively short order took the view that the confirmation of the sale during the pendency of LA. IV was incorrect and the sale was accordingly set aside and the executing Court was directed to hear the parties on LA. IV and to pass appropriate orders. It is against this order of the appeal court that the present civil revision petition has been preferred. Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned Counsel representing the petitioner has in the first instance submitted that has client is a total stranger to all the earlier litigations and that he had bid for and purchased