Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. 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 Order 21 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 rec