Rajamannar, C.J.- This appeal raises an interesting question of law which we think can be answered by a reference to the principle of the Full Bench decision in Ayyappa v. Kasiperumal1. The question is whether a creditor who has obtained a decree against a debtor whose property has been sold in execution of a decree obtained by another creditor can apply to have the sale set aside under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Of course, if the applicant is not only the holder of another decree but also had applied for rateable distribution of assets or taken steps which would entitle him to such a rateable distribution, then he would have the right to apply; but in the present case admittedly the decree-holder who is the appellant before us, has not taken any step in execution. He will not therefore be a person entitled to share in the rateable distribution of assets. Then it only remains to consider whether he can be said to be a person whose interests are affected by the sale. The words are indeed very wide, and, on a literal construction of the words, not only decree-holders but even ordinary creditors who have not yet sought to enforce their claims can be said to be a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document