The common petitioner in the two Civil Revision Petitions is a minor by name Muthuraj represented by his next friend Gopalaswami Kounder and the common petitioner in the two Writ Petitions in the said Gopalaswami kounder who sought permission to act as the next friend of the minor. O.S.Nos.630/97 and 172/98 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Chittur were two money suits instituted by respondents 1 to 5 herein against one Nataraja Kounder, who was the paternal grandfather of the said minor, Muthraj. The said suits were for realisation of money and were decreed against the said Nataraja Kounder. In execution of the decrees, six items of immovable properties having an extent of about nine acres belonging to the said Nataraja Kounder were sold in court auction and purchased by the 6th respondent herein namely E.R. Ajoy who is a stranger. W.P.(C).No.34847/05 is filed challenging Ext.P8 order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A,593/05 in E.P. 376/05 in O.S.630/97 whereunder the permission sought to appoint Gopalaswami Kounder as the next friend of the minor was refused. In C.R.P.1179/05, what is impugned in the order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A.593/05 in E.P.376/2000 in O.S.630/97 whereunder the petition filed by the minor through his next friend under Order 21 R.90 read with Sec.151 C.P.C. challenging the court auction sale has been dismissed holding that the minor has no locus standi to file the petition in view of the order passed in E.A.593/2005. In W.P.C.34848/05 the order impugned is Ext.P8 dated 11-11-2005 in E.A.595/05 in E.P.465/01 in O.S.172/98 whereunder permission to appoint Gopalaswami Kounder as the next friend of the minor has been declined. In C.R.P.1180/05 the order impugned is the order dated 11-11-2005 in E.A.594/05 in E.P. 465/05 in O.S.172/98 whereunder the court below has dismissed E.A.594/05 filed under Order 21 R.90 read with Sec.151 C.P.C. on the ground that in view of the order passed in E.A.595/05 the minor has no locus standi to file the petition.

2. I heard Advocate Sri. Sathish Nainan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions and the Writ Petitions and Adv. Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, auction purchaser.

3. Adv. Sri. Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser made the following submissions before me in support of the impugned orders:-

Muthuraj, the minor is only one of the legal representatives of one of the legal representatives of the original defendant/judgment debtor. This minor was impleaded only in the execution proceedings. His mother was appointed as his guardian in the execution proceedings in which the minor was one of the respondents. The decrees passed in both the suits were money decrees and the properties were brought to sale on 5-5-2004 and thereafter adjourned to 25-10-2004 for want of bidders on both auctions. Ultimately in the court auction sale conducted on 27-6-2005 the 6th respondent E.R. Joy was the highest bidder. On 1/9/2005 the minor’s mother Selvi had filed E.A.508/05 under Order 21 R.89 C.P.C. and E.A.509/2005 to record full satisfaction of the decree in O.S.630/97 by depositing the entire amount. Since the said application challenging the court auction sale was filed out of time, mother had filed E.A.507/2005 to condone the delay in filing E.A.508/2005. Likewise, the mother had filed similar petitions in O.S.172/98 also after depositing the entire amount. All those petitions were dismissed by the executing court. It is thereafter that on 25-10-2005 the minor represented by a total stranger by name Gopalaswami Kounder filed the present applications under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. alleging that the court auction sale was vitiated by fraud and material irregularity. Since the mother of the minor had already been appointed as the guardian of the minor in the execution proceedings, a stranger could not have come forward seeking his appointment as the next friend