ORDER : This revision petition arises out of execution proceedings in O. S. 105 of 1950. The learned District Judge refused to set aside the sale of the attached properties in the above execution proceedings, thereby reversing the order of the District Munsif, setting aside the sale on grounds of material irregularity and fraud in the conduct of the sale. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows :

2. The petitioner herein is a third party decree-holder. He had obtained decrees in O. S. 162 of 1960, in S. C. No. 172 of 1951 and in S. C. 455 of 1955 against one Pakkiri Moideen Rowther. The second respondent is another rival decree-holder in O. S. 105 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, against the said Pakkiri Moidden Rowther. The petitioner filed execution petitions in the above said three suits, but he did not pursue the execution proceedings, as he did not comply with the orders of court. While so, the decree-holder in O. S. 105 of 1950, Rangaswami Naidu, filed E. P. 334 of 1961 out of which this revision petition has arisen, and brought items 1 to 23 for sale after attachment not only of the said items but also several other items belonging to the judgment debtor. In the court auction sale, items 1 to 23 were purchased by the first respondent herein, Mynoon Bivi, the wife of the judgment debtor for a sum of Rs. 1505 subject to a other for Rs. 2500. Soon after the purchase, the said Mynoon Bivi mortgaged item 6 of the properties for a sum of Rs. 2600 under Ex. A. 1. Now the petitioner filed the application under O. XXI, R. 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale, on the ground that the properties would be worth more than Rs. 5000 that there was no proper publication of the sale proclamation, that respondents 2 and 3 herein had colluded with the first respondent herein, that the judgment debtor had fraudulently purchased the properties in his wife's name for a very low price, that the sale was not valid in law and that therefore the sale must be set aside. The petitioner's contention is that he is interested in the properties as he had already obtained decrees against the judgment debtor and therefore he is affected.

3. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no proper sale proclamation as required by O. XXI, Rr. 54(2), 66 and 67(1) C.P.C. that the judgment debtor, the third respondent herein had so fraudulently arranged to purchase the properties in court auction in the name of his wife for his own benefit for a very inadequate price and that the petitioner herein had locus standi to file the application. On those findings, the learned District Munsif set aside the sale held on 6-10-1961.

4. On appeal the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli reversed the finding of the District Munsif and came to the conclusion that the sale was not hit by any material irregularity or fraud, that the properly was sold for good consideration and that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the application for setting aside the sale. On these findings, the learned District Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner. It is against this order the revision petition has been filed.

5. The points for consideration in this petition are (1) whether the court has got inherent jurisdiction to set aside the sale on grounds of material irregularity and fraud practised upon either by the decree-holder or the judgment debtor, in bringing the properties to sale, and (2) whether the petitioner is directly and immediately interested in the properties brought to sale.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited a number of decisions. In Raghavachariar v. Murugesa Mudaliar, 44 Mad LJ 680 : (AIR 1923 Mad 635) it has been held that O. XXI, R. 92 C.P.C. does not oust the inherent power of a court to interfere to cancel the sale, even though no party has applied for cancellation when the court discovers in the course of the proceedings that the decree-holder deliberately misled it a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document