IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a party challenging a court auction sale must provide clear evidence of irregularities, and mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient to set aside a sale.

ORDER :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

[PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order made in E.A.No.2 of 2023 in E.P.No.156 of 2012 in O.S.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur, dated 10.04.2023.]

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.A.No.2 of 2023 in E.P.No.156 of 2012 in O.S.No.14 of 2005, dated 10.04.2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur, dismissing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioners/Defendants 2 and 3 have filed an application in E.A.No.2 of 2023 under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C, for setting aside the Court auction sale held on 04.01.2023.

3. The facts not in dispute are as follows :

(i) The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of money on a mortgage in O.S.No.14 of 2005 and since the defendants including the revision petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 have remained ex-parte, preliminary decree came to be passed on 20.06.2006 and final decree came to be passed on 26.04.2007.

(ii) The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a petition to condone the delay of 309 days in representing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte preliminary decree, dated 20.06.2006 in I.A.No.97 of 2007 and another application in I.A.No.26 of 2008 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 248 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte final decree, dated 26.04.2007. Both applications, after enquiry, were ordered to be dismissed on 17.12.2007 and 17.06.2008 respectively.

(iii) The defendants 1 and 2 have preferred revisions in CRP(MD) No.1569 and 1618 of 2008, challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.97 of 2007 and I.A.No.26 of 2008 before this Court and a common order came to be passed on 29.09.2008, allowing the revisions with a condition to deposit of 50% of the suit claim on or before 31.10.2008 to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Karur.

(iv) The third defendant, who is the second revision petitioner herein has filed similar petitions in I.A.No.27 and 59 of 2008 and the same were also dismissed by the District Court. The third defendant has preferred revisions in C.R.P(MD) Nos.127 and 128 of 2009 and this Court taking note of the earlier common order passed by the learned Judge on 29.09.2008, passed a conditional common order, directing the third defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of that order to the credit of the said suit. The defendants 1 to 3 including the revision petitioners have not complied with the directions of this Court and as per order of this Court, the orders passed by the trial Court in the above applications have become final.

(v) The respondent/decree holder has laid the first execution petition in E.P.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the District Court, Karur. The first revision petitioner's son has filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C., in E.A.No.45 of 2009 and the said petition was dismissed for default on 19.07.2010.

(vi) Meanwhile, notices in the execution petition were served on the revision petitioners and they have entered into appearance. After effecting paper publication, the first defendant firm was set ex-parte and thereafter, the revision petitioners have filed their counter to the execution petition. Subsequently, the revision petitioners remained ex-parte and hence, sale proclamation was ordered on 17.07.2014.

(vii) The first revision petitioner's son and father filed a petition in E.A.No.48 of 2014 to condone the delay in filing the petition for restoring the petition in E.A.No.45 of 2009, which was dismissed for default on 19.07.2010 and after enquiry, the said petition in E.A.No.48 of 2014 was dismissed. Thereafter, the first petitioner's son and father filed another claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C., in E.A.No.65 of 2005, raising