The auction purchaser is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of rejection passed in E.A.No.41 of 2013 in E.P.No.24 of 2009 in A.O.P.No.77 of 2008, dated 18.09.2013, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode.

2. The case of the petitioner/auction purchaser is that the petition mentioned property was brought for auction sale by the Principal District Court, Erode on 23.04.2012, in which this petitioner also participated as one of the bidders and purchased the properties for a total consideration of Rs.16,80,000/-. After purchasing the said property, this petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.1,34,400/- towards sale certificate charges within the period on 23.04.2012. After sale proclamation was made for the Court auction sale of the petition mentioned property, the petitioner has purchased the properties for valuable consideration. On proper verification of the property, there was no encumbrance was found in the sale proclamation or encumbrance certificate. He took part in the Court auction on good faith and under bonafide belief participated in the Court auction sale, since there is no risk and encumbrance in the petition mentioned property. Therefore, the petitioner has purchased the property in the Court auction sale with the total consideration sale of Rs.16,80,000/-, after the sale, the said Execution Petition was posted for confirmation of sale on 02.07.2012. At that time, the 4th respondent/ State Bank of India, Erode has filed a petition in E.A.No.19 of 2012 under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC stating that the judgment debtor in the execution petition has already mortgaged the same property and borrowed a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- and executed the loan agreement dated 10.09.2008, but, thereafter, the loan was not paid. The 4th respondent/Bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act. Though, the 4th respondent has sought the prayer for setting aside the Court auction sale in the said application, this petitioner/auction purchaser has already filed his counter expressing his willingness to get the purchase money back. But, after hearing the said petition in E.A.No.19 of 2012 filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application on 30.10.2012.

3. The petitioner has also come forward by saying that in fact the petitioner/auction purchaser has not aware of the mortgaged loan by the owner of the petition mentioned property, who is the judgment debtor in the Execution Petition. But, in the case on hand, the respondents 2 and 3 are the decree holders and the judgment debtors were set exparte in the execution petition and the property was already mortgaged and the bank has taken symbolic and actual possession of the property. Therefore, this petitioner has come forward by saying that the wilful concealment and non disclosure of the existence of the mortgage debt in the sale proclamation, is a fraud committed on him. Therefore, the negligence, carelessness and inadvertence and failure on the part of the respondents to take steps to bring into book about the existence of mortgage in the execution proceedings has mislead and kept the petitioner in dark. Therefore, all the respondents wantonly and purposely failed to take steps to show the real and true state of affairs and the condition of the property and created an illusion that the petition mentioned property is free of encumbrance to show that it could easily be sold. In the said circumstances, this petitioner has filed the present application in E.A.No.41 of 2013 for setting aside the Court auction sale held on 12.04.2012 and sought for the return back the amount of Rs.16,80,000/- along with the amount of Rs.1,34,400/-.

4. On receipt of the notice in the said petition, the first respondent/decree holder has filed his counter statement denying the entire allegations and states that the petition itself is abuse of process of law, since the petitioner having participated in the bid o