Mool Chand Garg, J.

This is an appeal by a mortgagor, who, in a suit for sale by the mortgagee, suffered a fraudulent ex-parte decree (since set aside). The appeal is resisted by the auction-purchasers, who are Respondents No. 2 & 3 before this Court.

2. The final decree for sale was passed ex-parte on 2.05.1980 and the court auction sale is said to have been held on 30.05.1980, i.e., within a period of 28 days. From 30.05.1980, we have, per force, to go back by 15 days because Rule 68 of Order 21 CPC requires a period of at least 15 days after publication. This brings us to 15.05.1980. The auction-purchasers, without any proof of service of notice on the record, want the Court to believe that the whole process of filing the execution; serving the notice for settling the sale proclamation on the judgment-debtor who was admittedly in Madras; actually settled the sale proclamation; and then publishing its notice, was carried out just in a period of only 13 days between 2.05.1980 and 14.05.1980.

3. The background facts are, that on the basis of a simple mortgage of property No. J-3/39 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, Suit No. 183/75 for sale was instituted on 21.07.1975 by the first Respondent (Plaintiff Sheela Verma) against the Appellant (Defendant Pran Mohini) for recovery of `39,849.80. The address of the Defendant Pran Mohini was given in the plaint as "2A/71, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi".

4. Summons could not be served, and publication was done in the Hindustan Times (Delhi Edition) on 21.11.1975. This publication was done with the address as 2A/71, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. Though as established in the evidence recorded during the proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree, the Plaintiff was aware since 1970 of the Madras address of the Defendant where she was residing, but this address was not disclosed to the Court and proceedings were taken ex parte. Preliminary decree under Rule 4 of Order 34 CPC was passed ex parte on 15.01.1976 by Shri H.K.S. Malik, ADJ.

5. On 31.07.1979, application for final decree was filed by Plaintiff Sheela Verma. Here too, as noted in the order dated 27.08.1983 setting aside the ex parte decree, the Plaintiff was corresponding with the Defendant at the Madras address, but neither disclosed to the Court the Madras address of the Defendant nor disclosed to the Defendant the pendency of the court proceedings in Delhi.

6. An application for substituted service in the final decree proceedings was moved on 19.12.1979. Again, there was no reference to the Madras address. A final decree for sale under Rule 5 of Order 34 CPC was passed ex parte on 2.05.1980 by Shri Jagdish Chandra, as the then ADJ, Delhi.

7. No one knows what exactly transpired in the period after 2.05.1980 as the record of the Execution proceedings is said to have been destroyed. But the mortgaged property is stated to have been sold in court auction on 30.05.1980, and purchased by Respondents No. 2 & 3 Devinder Singh and Erika for Rs. 1,29,000/-, who are the Germany based son and daughter-in-law of the tenant Mohinder Kaur in the property.

8. Thereafter, the Defendant Pran Mohini filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 19.07.1980 and also moved an interim application for stay of confirmation of sale. By order dated 4.08.1980, confirmation of sale was stayed by the ADJ till the disposal of the application and it is not clear if it was vacated, and when. Objections to the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC also are said to have been filed simultaneously in 1980.

9. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree was allowed and the decree was set aside by a detailed order on 27.08.1983 by the ADJ. There is also an order dated 7.10.1983, which records that the auction purchasers (Respondents 2 & 3 before this Court) sought time to file an appeal against the order dated 27.08.1983 setting aside the ex parte decree. However, it is not known whether any appeal was filed, and if so, what happened to it.

10. On 28.