G.H. Guttal, J.

1. This petition by the purchaser at the court auction in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 3 of 1978 impugns the validity of the order of the District Judge, Thalassery, in C. M, A. No. 34 of 1990 confirming the order of the Sub Judge, Thalassery in E. A. No, 48 of 1987 in E. P. No. 103 of 1986, whereby the latter allowed the Judgment debtor's application and set aside the sale under R.90 of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code).

On 31st May, 1991 I allowed this petition in the absence of counsel for the judgment debtor. However, upon hearing the C. M. P. No. 3769 of 1991 by the judgment debtor, respondent No. 1 heroin, I set aside the order and restored this civil revision petition to file That is how this petition has come before me for hearing.

2. In this judgment the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 are referred to as the purchaser, the judgment debtor and the decree holder respectively.

3. The following facts may be taken to be undisputed.

The Execution Application No. 48 of 1987 for setting aside the sale, made by the judgment debtor, was based on these grounds: - (a) Due to ulcer on his foot he