Maintainability of the revision petition filed by petitioner.

This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in R. E. P. No. 1 of 1967 in O. S. No. 185 of 1964, directing the sale of items 1 and 4 mentioned in the schedule to the petition to be sold in the first instance. The civil revision petitioner was not a party to the execution proceedings. Hence he filed the above civil revision petition after obtaining the leave of this Court as per the order of Padmanabhan, J. in C. M. P. 8680 of 1980, dated 2nd September, 1980.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondents 1 to 9 in the execution petition, who are the respondents 2 to 10 herein, mortgaged 5 items of properties to Messrs. Pandian Bank Ltd., which had subsequently merged with the Canara Bank (Gugai branch) by deposit of title deeds on 10th June, 1959. Since the mortgagors failed to repay the mortgage amount, the Bank filed a suit in O. S. 135 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem for realising the amount due under the mortgage.

On 11th November, 1964, the mortgagors, the respondents 2 to 10 herein, seem to have executed an agreement of sale in respect of item 4 of the properties mentioned in the execution petition, in favour of the civil revision petitioner. On 1st March, 1965 a preliminary decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Salem in favour of the abovesaid Bank, the first respondent herein, for the amount due under the mortgage. On 27th March, 1965, the mortgagors, the respondents 2 to 10 herein, executed a sale deed in respect of item 4 in favour of the civil revision petitioner herein. In that sale deed the civil revision petitioner, the purchaser, was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 85,000 towards the above mortgage debt. On 31st July, 1966 final decree for sale of the properties in favour of the above said bank was passed in O. S. No. 165 of 1964. The respondents 2 to 10 herein who executed the sale deed on 27th March, 1965 did not register the same and hence the sale deed was compulsorily registered under section 64 of the Registration Act on 6th February, 1967.

3. The respondents 2 to 10 herein, earlier to the abovesaid proceedings, had also other simple money creditors and one of them filed O. S. No. 16 of 1961 and obtained a simple money decree against them and filed E. P. No, 143 of 1964 for sale of the properties of the respondents 2 to 10 herein, in Court auction. On 25th July, 1976, the properties of the respondents 2 to 10 herein, were sold to one Kandasami Chettiar in Court auction. The civil revision petitioner on the strength of the sale in its favour filed an application in R. E. A. No. 443 of 1967 in R. E. P. No. 143 of 1964 to set aside the Court-auction sale in respect of the properties purchased by it, viz., item 4 in the execution petition. The Subordinate Judge set aside the sale in respect of item 4 on 28th April, 1973, and confirmed the sale in respect of other items.

4. When the abovesaid Bank filed an application to execute the final decree in their favour in R. E. P. No. 1 of 1967 in O. S. No. 185 of 1964, the civil revision petitioner filed an application in R. E. A. No. 487 of 1976 for impleading the civil revision petitioner as a party in the execution proceedings. By order, dated, 6th September, 1976, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application in R. E. A. No. 487 of 1976, holding that the civil revision petitioner cannot be impleaded as a party to the execution proceedings.

5. In the meanwhile, the auction-purchaser in R. E. P. No. 143 of 1964 sold the properties by means of a sale deed, dated 1st December, 1973, marked as Exhibit B-1, to the 10th respondent herein. The 10th respondent herein on the strength of the sale deed in her favour filed an application in R. E. A. No. 1518 of 1978 to implead her as a party respondent. The said application was also dismissed. But, the 10th respondent herein filed a revision to the High Court which was allowed and subsequently she was impleaded as a party respon