The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application challenging a court auction sale under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code must be filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, and allegations of fraud and collusion must be established to set aside the sale.

"C.R."

The following points arising for a decision.

(i) Is a pendente lite purchaser of property placed under court attachment a 'representative' of the transferor - defendant entitled to challenge the court auction sale?

(ii) Could a sale be set aside for non-compliance of Rule 64 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") in an application preferred under Section 47 of that Code after the period 60 days prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act")?

(iii) Whether the executing court was correct in rejecting the application of petitioner to set aside the auction sale on the ground of illegality, fraud and collusion in publishing and conducting the sale?

2. This Revision is brought from the order passed by learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam on E.A. No.57 of 2009 in E.P. No.56 of 2002 in O.S. No.405 of 2001. Respondent No.1-decree holder instituted the suit for recovery of money due from respondent No.2. 25 cents and a marriage hall situated thereon belonging to respondent No.2 was placed under attachment before judgment on 16.11.2001. The court passed a decree in favour of respondent No.1 allowing him to recover the amount from respondent No.2. That decree was put into execution. Notice under Rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code was served on respondent No.2-judgment debtor but there was no response. Respondent No.1 waned to sell the attached property and produced draft proclamation of sale of the said 25 cents and marriage hall. Notice under Rule 66(2) of Order XXI was issued to respondent No.2. Allegedly on behalf of respondent No.2, that notice was served on one Dr.P.G. Menon (later he informed the executing court that he was not authorised to receive the notice on behalf of respondent No.2). The proclamation of sale was settled fixing the upset price at Rs.5 lakhs (subject to the liability to the Kerala Financial Corporation - for short, "the KFC" to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs). Respondent No.3 purchased the property for Rs.5.50 lakhs (subject to the liability to the KFC) in the court auction held on 04.03.2008. Executing court confirmed the sale in favour of respondent No.3 on 06.08.2008 and issued sale certificate on 30.12.2008. Petitioner, a Private Limited Company claimed to have purchased 44 cents including the 25 cents and marriage hall (sold in court auction) as per sale deed No.2067 of 2002 dated 10.06.2002 executed by respondent No.2 through his Power of Attorney Holder, Dr. P.G. Menon. According to the petitioner, it got possession of the said property on execution of the said sale deed. It was agreed between petitioner and respondent No.2 that the latter would discharge liability to the KFC or other financial institutions due as on the date of sale. While so, the KFC initiated steps against petitioner for recovery of amount and two Directors of petitioner volunteered to clear major portion of that liability. On 15.01.2009 petitioner learnt that in execution of the decree in O.S. No.405 of 2001, 25 cents and marriage hall (which formed part of the 44 cents covered by sale deed No.2067 of 2002) was sold in court auction and purchased by respondent No.3 who is the son of Dr.P.G. Menon. Petitioner filed E.A. No.57 of 2009 to set aside the sale on following grounds:

1. Respondent No.2 did not inform the executing court about the assignment (of the property) in favour of petitioner as per document No.2067 of 2002 dated 10.07.2002.

2. The 25 cents and marriage hall worth more than Rs.2 crores was sold in court auction for a paltry sum of Rs.5.50 lakhs. Even the annual income from the said property was Rs.2.40 lakhs which would show that market value shown and upset price fixed are low.

3. Respondent No.1 has not produced the relevant document and affidavit as required by the Rules of procedure before settlement of proclamation of sale.

4. Considering the prevailing market value of property at the time of settlement of proclamation respondent No.1 had no ri