1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jagannadha Raju, J.- C.M.A. No. 110 of 1992 is filed by the first judgment debtor, who filed E.A. No. 209 of 1989 under O.21. E.F.A. No. 21 of 1992 is filed by the second judgment debtor who was a guarantor, who filed E. A. No. 279 of 1989 to set aside the sale. He filed the application belatedly, but the court excused the delay and entertained the application to set aside the sale. Both the applications were disposed of by a common order dated 30th November, 1991 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thalassery. The learned Judge dismissed the applications on the ground that the sale cannot be set aside. The auction sale took place on 9th March 1989 and the properties were actually attached before the judgment on 6th July 1981.

2. Sri K. Chandrasekharan, learned senior counsel who led the arguments in E.F.A. No. 21 of 1992 contends that here is a case where an extremely valuable property has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,01,000 and the auction was conducted with several material irregularities. The inadequate price fetched by itself clearly indicates that prejudice has been caused to the judgment debtors. He points out that