The short, but important questions of law relating to the scope and ambit of the power of review of the civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to review an order passed by the execution court are involved in these revisions.

2. Thecommon order passed by the Principal Munsiffs Court, Irinjalakuda in E.A. Nos. 1843, 1844 and 1857 of 2001 in E.P. No.1243 of 2000 in O.S. No.239 of 1997 is under challenge in these revisions. The decree holder in the said suit is the petitioner in the above interlocutory applications and the revision petitioner herein. E.A. No.1844 of 2001 is an application for review of the order dated 19.2001 in E.A. No.335 of 2001. E.A. No.1843 of 2001 is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 8 days in filing E.A. No.1844 of 2001. E.A. No.1857 of 2001 is an application to review the order dated 19.2001 to set aside the sale. By the impugned order, the court below dismissed the applications.

3. The properties in dispute were sold in court auction on 12.2001 in E.P. No.1243 of 2000. The second respondent herein purchased the property in court auction for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. On 16.2.2001, within three days of the auction, the petitioner filed E.A. No.335 of 2001 to set aside the sale. The execution court posted the said application to 19.2001 for evidence. It is the case of the petitioner that Sri. U.A. Chackunny, the counsel engaged by the petitioner was hospitalized due to old age illness and hence he could not appear before the court which resulted in the dismissal of

E.A. No.335 of 2001 on 19.2001. On coming to know about the order of dismissal of E.A. No.335 of 2001, the petitioner filed E.A. No.1844 of 2001 under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. to review the order of dismissal. Along with the above application, the petitioner also filed E.A. No.1843 of 2001 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 8 days in filing E.A. No.1844 of 2001. Another application, E.A. No.1857 of 2001 was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to review the order confirming the sale and to restore the application to set aside the sale. It is not necessary to state the circumstances under which the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.5923 of 2002 and the orders passed therein since those are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the questions involved in these revisions.

4. Thesum and substance of E.A. No.1844 of 2001 is as follows:

The petitioner filed E.A. No.335 of 2001 to set aside the sale. The second respondent herein, who is the auction purchaser, in collusion with the other respondents, purchased the petition schedule property for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. According to the petitioner, the property would have fetched Rs.2,00,000/- and that the said property was attached in O.S. No.15 of 1997, a suit pending between the same parties before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. It is contended by the petitioner that in the said case, the petitioner had obtained a decree for realisation of Rs.1,52,363/-. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the auction purchaser in collusion with the other defendants in the suit purchased the property for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to defeat the execution of the decree in O.S. No.15 of 1997 and, therefore, the revision petitioner suffered severe loss. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed E.A. No.335 of 2001 to set aside the sale. The execution court dismissed the application stating that the petitioner was absent and confirmed the sale. In order to facilitate the petitioner to conduct the case on merits, the petitioner filed E.A. No.1844 of 2001 to review the order passed in E.A. No.335 of 2001 along with E.A. No.1843 of 2001 to condone the delay in filing E.A. No.1844 of 2001. The petitioner also filed E.A. No.1857 of 2001 under Section 151 C.P.C. to review the order dated 19.2001 and to set aside the sale. The execution court considered all