1. The question involved in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to a sale of immovable property under the Partition Act, 1893.

2. In O.S.No.250 of 1996, Sub Court, Kochi, filed by the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 6, a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 11.1.2000. The plaintiff was held entitled to get 1/7 share. The preliminary decree was modified in appeal, holding that the 1/7 share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property includes share in the building as well. Respondents 1 to 6 filed an application for passing the final decree. In the final decree application, it was made clear that if division in specie was not possible, the property could be sold and the proceeds divided.

3. A Commissioner was appointed, who reported that it was not possible to divide the property by metes and bounds giving shares to all the sharers. On the request made by the parties, sale of the property by public auction was ordered as per the order dated 16.10.2003. The property consists of three cents of land and a residential building. Auction was held on 29.3.2005. Respondent No.16 offered the highest amount of Rs.17.5 lakhs. She deposited the sale price. The case was posted for confirmation of sale on 17.5.2005. At that time, the revision petitioner, who is the third defendant in the suit, filed an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale. The trial court dismissed the application and it was confirmed in appeal. The revision petitioner challenges the concurrent decisions of the courts below.

4. The petitioner contended that no notice was issued to him under Rule 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The final decree court directed to issue a proclamation sale. Therefore, the petitioner contends that all the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure relating to execution sale would be applicable to the proceedings in relation to the sale. The revision petitioner contended that even if Rule 90 of Order XXI is not applicable, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable.

5. The contesting respondents, including the plaintiffs, contended that in the final decree proceedings, the petitioner did not appear in spite of receipt of notice. Even though proclamation was issued, it was not necessary to issue separate notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the property. None of the parties including the petitioner filed objection to the Commissioner's report. After affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties, the court below passed the order dated 16.10.2003 for sale. Draft sale proclamation was issued and the parties were given opportunity to file objections. Opportunity was afforded for hearing. Publication was made in the newspaper regarding the sale. No objection was raised by any of the parties. The proclamation was duly published. The respondents also contended that the petitioner did not make any offer to purchase the property for a higher amount at any point of time. The attempt of the petitioner is to protract the litigation.

6. Both the courts below found that there was no material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. The oral and documentary evidence in the case were considered by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion. It was held by the courts below that the value fetched in the auction sale was just and reasonable. That none of the parties was willing to take the property for a higher value was also taken note of by the courts below.

7. The respondents in the Revision raised a contention that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the court below had abated due to non-impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased eighth respondent in the appeal. Though an application for impleading the legal representatives was filed by the petitione