1. The petitioner, who was unsuccessful in E.A.36 of 1994 on the file of Sub Court, Pattukottai, as well as C.M.A. No. 44 of 1995 on the file of District Court, Thanjavur, is the revision petitioner.

.2. The revision petitioner filed E.A. No. 36 of 1994 in E.P. No. 2 of 1993 in O.S. No. 43 of 1986 on the file of Sub Court, Pattukottai under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. to raise the attachment dated 2. 1994. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he had purchased the property on 16. 1986, that he is the exclusive and absolute owner of the suit property, that he has been in enjoyment of the same, that the order of attachment effected on 2. 1994 as if it is still owned by respondents 3 to 7 judgment debtors, is a misconception, that he property is not liable to be attached, that deliberately his property had been attached and that the order of attachment is illegal, inoperative and the same is liable to be set aside.

3. The contesting respondents 1 and 2 filed a detailed counter. It has seen contended that the suit properties were owned by the judgment debtors, that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is a sham and nominal transaction that no sale consideration