Revision filed u/s 115 C.P.C. can be converted under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(This revision is preferred under Section 115 CPC praying to revise the order dated 18.03.2005 passed in EA No.34 of 2005 in EA No.417 of 2000 in EA No.380 of 2000 in EP No.390 of 1996 in OS No.709 of 78 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.)

The respondents in E.A.No.34 of 2005 in E.A.No.417 of 2000 in E.A.No.380 of 2000 in E.P.No.390 of 1996 in O.S. No.709 of 1978 are the revision petitioners.

2.The facts though may not be necessary in detail to dispose this revision, minimum requirements are as follows:

One Balakrishnagiri Bai obtained a money decree against one Ramanathan in O.S.No.709 of 1978 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, based on a promissory note. Pursuant to the decree, in order to realise the fruits of the same, by filing execution petition No.103 of 1986, she brought the properties of Ramanathan in a court auction, in which one Sankaranarayanan had purchased the property, being the successful auction purchaser. When the E.P. was posted for confirmation of sale, it appears the auction purchaser Sankaranarayanan died, resulting the impleading of the L.Rs.

3.The judgment debtor, by name Ramanathan, seems to have sold the properties to one Shanmugam on 7.2.1985. Before Court sale, Shanmugam paid some amounts and thereafter, he had filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, depositing the amount also, as contemplated, in E.A.No.276 of 1996, impleading the plaintiff/decree holder and defendant/judgment debtor, as respondent. When that application, namely EA No.276 of 1996, was pending, it appears auction purchaser died. Despite the fact, time was granted for taking steps in E.A.No.276 of 1996, the petitioner therein has not taken steps and therefore, the application was dismissed on 19.11.1993, for default. Then, the same was restored as per order in E.A.No.266 of 1994. After taking steps, due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts, the case pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, was transferred to District Munsif, Dindigul, where the E.P. was renumbered as E.P.No.390 of 1996 and E.A. was also renumbered. Once again, E.A. and E.P. were dismissed for default. Then, on application, once again E.P. was restored to file. The petitioner in E.A.No.276 of 1996, namely Mr.Shanmugam, after the dismissal of E.P. or otherwise, appears to have sold the property, to the respondent herein, by name Pavalamani on 29.09.1999 or so. After the restoration of E.P., the court sale was confirmed on 27.10.1999.

4.Shanmugam, who had purchased the property from judgment debtor, filed E.A.No.321 of 2001 to restore the E.A. filed by him to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, which was dismissed, along with E.A.No.320 of 2001, for condonation of delay in filing the said application. The court concerned allowed both the applications, thereby causing grievance to the L.Rs. of the auction purchaser, who obtained sale certificate on 27.10.1999. Therefore, L.Rs. of the auction purchaser have filed C.R.P.Nos.229 and 247 of 2002 on the file of this Court, questioning the allowing of E.A.Nos.320 and 321 of 2001, which were aimed to restore the petition to set aside the sale, after condoning the delay.

5.This Court, after considering the prolonged litigation between the parties as well as the legal position, came to the conclusion that the lower court had committed an error, in condoning the delay as well as restoring the petition, filed by Mr.Shanmugam to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC, i.e. probably E.A.No.276 of 1996. In this view, C.R.Ps were allowed, dismissing E.A.Nos.320 and 321 of 2001. Thus, the sale in favour of the auction purchaser and the sale certificate issued in pursuance of the same, reached finality, because of the further fact the said Shanmugam failed before the Apex Court also, by moving special leave petitions, which were dismissed on 10.12.2004. The litigation started in the year 1978, for the recovery of some amount on the basis of promissory