This revision petition has been filed by one of the alleged creditors of the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 69 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, but he was not a party to that suit. In execution of the decree certain properties of the judgment-debtors were sold on 17th March, 1971. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 21, rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud, contending that the price fetched was low. The learned Subordinate Judge, following the decision in Official Receiver of Ramnad v. Veerappa Chettiar1, held that the petitioner could not be said to be a person whose interests were affected by the sale within the meaning of Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, and therefore had no locus standi to maintain the application. This petition has been filed against that order.

2. Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, describes the persons who may apply to the Court to set aside the sale as the decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets or whose interests are affected by the sale. Clearly some limitation