The main legal point established is that objections to execution proceedings, including saleable interest and legality of sale, should be raised within the prescribed time period and during the execution proceedings, and that the distinction between objections under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code is crucial.

Revision petitioners are petitioners before the execution Court. They are the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 103 of 1980. The decree-holders obtained attachment of properties mentioned in the petition and they were brought to sale on 2-1-1988 and sold on 20-1-1988. They have filed application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to declare the sale conducted on 2-1-1988 as null and void. The learned Sub Judge after considering the application dismissed the same. The revision is against this order.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the above revision are as follows : O.S. No. 103 of 1980 was instituted by one Mathai Philip for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,835/49. The suit was decreed on 14-8-1981. Six items of the properties which were attached before the judgment on 6-12-1980 during the pendency of the suit were brought to sale on 20-1-1988 for realisation of the decree amount. The sale was confirmed on 25-2-1988. The petitioners/judgment-debtors were the defendants in the suit. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. They have not filed any objections while the attachment before the judgment was ordered on 6-12-1990 and though notices were served on them during the execution proceedings they did not file any application to set aside the sale. While so they filed the present application under Section 47, C.P.C. on 27-7-1997 after the execution decree has become final and proceedings completed.

3. Some more relevant facts relating to the application are that the mother of the 2nd petitioner filed a claim petition as E.A. No. 75 of 1989 in respect of certain items of the property which was brought to sale. The said application was dismissed by the execution Court. Thereafter she filed a suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1989, before the Munsif Court, Haripad, for an injunction restraining the respondents, additional decree-holders, for obtaining delivery of 51/2 cents of land with building comprised in Survey No. 360 of Haripad village forming part of item No. 3 of the decree schedule property. The suit was dismissed on 27-6-1992. The mother of the second petitioner filed E.A. No. 172 of 1989 objecting to the delivery of the property. E.A. No. 198/89 was filed by the additional decree-holders for the removal of the obstruction. They were pending disposal. Again the mother of the 2nd petitioner filed O.S. No. 359/94 before the Sub Court, Mavelikara seeking for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 103/80 and the proceeding relating to the same are null and void. She had filed E.A. No. 71/95 to stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of O.S. No. 359/94 which was dismissed on 7-2-1997. She had also filed O.P. No. 34/97 before the District Court, Alapuzha, which was dismissed. She had subsequently preferred application to reopen the evidence in E.A. Nos. 174 and 175/97 on 25-2-1997 and for staying all the proceedings in the E.P. which were dismissed on 14-3-1997. The mother of the 2nd petitioner also preferred O.P. No. 4548/97 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the execution orders. The same was dismissed on 14-3-1997.

4. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners raised three main contentions : (i) the petitioners-judgment-debtors have no saleable interest in the properties sold. The said question ought to have been adjudicated upon by the executing Court under Section 47, C.P.C.; (ii) the decree-holders had bid at the auction and brought the property without permission of the Court and, therefore, the sale was illegal; and (iii) the value of the property is considerable and the property is sold for a nominal sum and hence there is material irregularity in the sale of the property.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents strenuously submitted that from the sequence of events and facts set out it would show that there has been a systematic attempt on the part of the judgment-debtors by themselves and by the aged mother of the 2nd judgment-debtor to som