K. HARILAL, J.

1. These Original Petitions (Civil) are filed challenging the common order passed in EA Nos. 1038/2008, 1039/2008, 1040 of 2008 and 1041 of 2008 in Execution Petition No.189 of 2006 in O.S. No.98 of 2004 on the files of Court of Subordinate Judge Palakkad. OP(C) 639 of 2011 was filed challenging the EA Nos. 1038 and 1039 of 2008 and OP(C) No. 827 of 2011 was filed challenging EA Nos. 1040 and 1041 of 2008. EA No.1039 of 2008 and 1041 of 2008 are filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'CPC'). EA No.1038 of 2008 and EA No.1040 of 2008 were filed for keeping the conformation in abeyance till the disposal of EA No. 1039 and EA No. 1041 of 2008 respectively. The applicant in EA Nos.1038 of 2008 and EA No.1039 of 2008 is the plaintiff in O.S 126 of 2007 on the files of Sub Court, Palakkad. Similarly, applicant in EA Nos.1040 of 2008 and 1041 of 2008 is the plaintiff in O.S. No.125 of 2007. They are not parties to the above suit or Execution Petition.

2. The Original Suit No. 98 of 2004 was filed by the 1st respondent against respondents 2 to 5 for realisation of Rs.4,80,556/- with interest and attachment before the judgment was ordered. The suit was decreed in terms of compromise on 19.12.2005 and the 1st respondent field the above Execution Petition to execute the decree. The petition schedule properties were sold in auction on 17/07/2008 for Rs.6,50,000/-. The decree holder himself purchased the Petition schedule properties in execution of sale.

3. While so, the petitioners, who are the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 126 of 2007 and O.S. No.125 of 2007 have filed IA No. 880 of 2007 and I.A. No. 889 of 2007 respectively to attach the petition schedule property before judgment. Both the applications were allowed and the petition schedule properties were attached before judgment on 29/03/2007. When they came to know the proceedings in Execution Petition No.189 of 2006 in O.S. No. 98 of 2004, they filed the above applications alleging that there had been no proper or adequate publication of notice regarding the sale conducted on 17/07/2008. According to them, the notice of sale was not affixed in the premises or other offices concerned. Had there been proper publication, more persons would have turned up for bidding the property in auction. In the absence of bidders, the plaint schedule properties were sold in auction for a paltry sum of Rs.6,50,000/- only. The petition schedule properties are two shop rooms situated at Big Bazar in Palakkad. One cent of property would fetch 10 to 13 lakhs at the locality, where the petition schedule properties are located. Hence, in both petitions, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the sale.

4. The decree holder/1st respondent filed objection contending that the petitioners had no locus standi to file such a petition invoking jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition schedule properties were charged with the decree debt. The 1st respondent had obtained permission of the court to bid the properties in auction and the same was conducted in accordance with law and procedure there under. Now, the execution petition is posted for confirmation of sale. The petitioners are strangers to the proceedings and they have no interest over the petition schedule properties. There is no proper or sufficient reason to set aside the sale. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of all the four applications filed by the petitioners.

5. After considering the rival contentions, the execution court dismissed all the applications filed by the petitioners, mainly on the point that, the petitioners have no locus standi to file such a petition under Section 47 of the CPC, particularly, when they had filed a petition to set aside the sale invoking jurisdiction under Order 21 Rule 90 and thereafter they themselves withdrew the said application as not pressed. The legality, propriety and correctness of the said order is under challenge in these original petiti