( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and Order of the IX Additional City civil Judge, Bangalore dated 27th July, 1996, rejecting the petitioners' application for setting aside the sale which prime facie appears, application was given the title to be under Order 21, rule 90 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. It appears, the Counsel had also forgotten to mention Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, but the objections that were taken, as can be said to be one covered by Section 47, Civil Procedure code.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that: A suit for partition was filed bearing No. O. S. 9706 of 1980, by the plaintiff-respondent 1 and for separate possession of joint-family property, the suit came to be decreed-allctting respective shares to each of the parties. Thereafter, an application was filed for drawing up of the final decree and the case was taken up for drawing a final decree, in accordance with the preliminary decree. At that stage, the present revision petitioners, that is defendants 1 and 2 moved an application before the Court to the effect that the suit property is not divisible, because of its smallness and suggested for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document