Some interesting questions fall for consideration in this second appeal. They are (1) whether the remedy to set aside, or declare void, the court auction-sale for non-service of notice under Order 21 , rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) by the judgment debtor or his representative lies only in an application under section 47 of the Code and (2) whether in a suit by a court auction purchaser for recovery of possession, the judgment debtor or his representative is entitled to resist the suit on the score that the court auction sale is void?

2. The admitted facts relevant for the purpose are given below. The appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No. 488 of 1975, District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, brought by the first respondent/plaintiff The second respondent is the second defendant in that suit. The first respondent's father obtained a money decree against one Kannan in O.S.No. 632 of 1962, District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore and had attached the property of the said Kannan in E.P. No 1944 of 1965. One Nagalingam filed a claim petition. E.A. No. 202 of 1966 and the same was allowed. Consequently, the attachment was raised. On 27th