This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Order dated 05.10.2010 and made E.A.No.171 of 2010 in E.P.No.2 of 2004 in O.S.No. 49 of 1997, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.

2. The facts, which giving rise to the memorandum of civil miscellaneous appeal may be summarized as under:

The appellants 1 and 2 are the defendants, whereas the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 49 of 1997 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.

3. Both the appellants and respondent had entered into an agreement of sale on 18.01.1996 and thereby the appellants had agreed to sell their properties more fully described in the schedule in favour of the respondent for a total consideration of Rs. 54,00,000/-. Totally, the first appellant had received a amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- from the respondent towards advance. Even inspite of several demands, the appellants had not come forward to execute and register the sale deed. Hence, the respondent was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No. 49 of 1997, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, at Kuzhithurai to realize the sum of Rs. 7,23,920/-with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 4,45,000/-. The suit was decreed as prayed for.

4. On the strength of the decree, the respondent had initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2004 before the executing Court viz., the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking the sale of schedule mentioned properties, which were attached even prior to the passing of Judgment, in pursuant to the order made in I.A. No. 257 of 1997, dated 18.08.1997.

5. During the pendency of execution proceedings, the appellants were trying to trammel the execution proceedings by filing various revision petitions before the High Court. After breaking all the hurdles, the respondent had sought permission of the executing Court to bid in the auction as there were no bidders. Accordingly, the respondent was permitted to bid the Court auction on 24.04.2009, in pursuant to the order passed in E.A.No.58 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Again, the appellants had filed a revision petition in C.R.P. No. 1252 of 2009 seeking the relief of setting aside the order of the executing Court dated 24.04.2009 and made in E.A. No. 58 of 2007 permitting the respondent to bid the auction. When this revision came up for hearing, the appellants had given an undertaking that they would pay the decree amount within a month time. After recording their undertaking, this Court had also directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- directly to the respondent / decree holder on or before 31.12.2009 and the balance amount as per the decree and as per the calculation given by the respondent / decree holder must be paid to him on or before 31.01.2010.

7. While passing the Order, this Court has specifically made clear that if the appellants/ judgment debtors had committed any default in making the payment of the first installment, as stated supra, the order passed by the lower Court in E.A.No. 58 of 2007 on 24.04.2009 would stand confirmed and the civil revision petition (C.R.P. No. 1252 of 2009) shall stand automatically dismissed. Since the appellants/ judgment debtors had failed to comply with the directions of this Court, the order passed by the executing Court in E.A.No.58 of 2007 on 24.04.2009 was confirmed. Consequently, the civil revision petition in C.R.P. No.1252 of 2009 was also dismissed automatically.

8. In pursuant to the order passed in E.A.No.58 of 2007, the respondent/decree holder had participated in the Court auction held on 11.03.2010 in respect of B Schedule property and the sale was also confirmed in favour of the respondent/decree holder as he was the highest bidder. The respondent/decree holder had also participated in the Court auction held on 25.03.2010 in respect of A schedule property and the sale was also confirmed in his favour as he being the high