The need for further evidence and documentary proof to determine the dispute over the property auction.

The civil revision petitioner herein is the applicant/third party in E.A.No.151 of 2007, in E.P.No.56 of 2004, in O.S.No.188 of 2003, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi. The civil revision petitioner has filed an execution application in E.A.No.157 of 2007, praying to set aside the Court auction dated 18.04.2007, conducted in E.P.No.56 of 2004, in O.S.No.188 of 2003. The same was dismissed on 25.08.2008. Against this order, the revision has been filed.

2. The revision petitioner/third party applicant has inter-alia stated that the first respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.188 of 2003 against the second respondent for recovery of money. The same was decreed on 211. 2003. Pursuant to the decree, the first respondent has filed E.P.No.56 of 2004 for attachment of nine items of immovable properties of the second respondent. Out of these nine items of properties, the eighth item of property has been purchased by the first respondent in the Court auction after obtaining permission from the Court. But, so far, the said auction had not been confirmed by the Court.

.3. The revision petitioner has further stated that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.681 of 2002 against the second respondent herein, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. The same was decreed. Pursuant to the decree, the revision petitioner attached the immovable property of the second respondent, including the eighth item of property, which was subsequently purchased by the first respondent after a period of one year. The revision petitioner has submitted that there is a relevant entry in the encumbrance certificate also regard the said attachment as per decree passed in O.S.No.681 of 2002.

4. The revision petitioner further stated that the Court auction was conducted without scrutinising the title of the eighth item of property. Further, the second respondent colluded with the first respondent for conducting the public auction.

5. The first respondent has filed a counter statement and denied the allegations made by the revision petitioner. The first respondent stated that the eighth item of property was not auctioned, but the respondent had obtained permission from the Court after filing necessary papers and knocked down the property in the public auction. There are no grounds to set aside the said auction. Further, the execution application is not maintainable. Other than this property, some other property belonging to the second respondent is also available to be brought to a public auction for executing the revision petitioners decree. As such, the said application is not maintainable and the first respondent has prayed to dismiss the same.

.6. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

.The first respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.188 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Kallakurichi for recovery of Rs.1,26,800/- against the second respondent/defendant. The suit was set ex-parte. Pursuant to this ex-party decree, the first respondent/plaintiff/decree holder has filed E.P.No.56 of 2004 in O.S.No.188 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi. As per the Decree, the petitioner/decree holder had purchased the eighth item of property. The revision petitioner has challenged the auction purchase of eighth item of property, dated 18.04.2007, before the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi, in E.A.No.151 of 2007 and sought for setting aside the said auction purchase. This application was dismissed.

7. Aggreived by the said Order passed in E.A.No.151 of 2007, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kallakurichi, the revision petition has been filed.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the eighth item of property mentioned in the E.P. Proceedings in E.P.No.56 of 2004 had already been attached on 10.06.2003. Without considering this aspect of the matter, the Court had permitted the auction, which is against law. Further, the learned counsel contended that the first and second respondents have colluded with