Only a decree holder can challenge possession under CPC; third parties lack standing, reaffirming principles of res judicata and validity in execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the execution applications in E.A. No.221/2013 and E.A. No.223/2013, filed by the appellant, who is a third party, under Order XXI Rule 97 and 98 and Order XXI Rule 26 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, to record her obstruction and to restore her right in the property and also for setting aside the sale in respect of the petition mentioned property and discharging the appellant from the sale proceedings, the present appeal has been filed before this Court assailing the said orders.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :-

The appellant is the wife of the 3^rd respondent, who was working as Clerk in the 2^nd respondent/Co-operative Bank. The 3^rd respondent, in connivance with two other staff of the 2^nd respondent bank had defalcated the funds of the bank, which resulted in a dispute arising between the said individuals and the bank, which was referred to by the Registrar for arbitration u/s 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’) in ARC No.83/2004.

3. In addition to the above, two notices u/s 167 of the Act was issued against the 3^rd respondent calling upon him to furnish security to the tune of Rs.13.30 Lakhs and Rs.20 Lakhs respectively and it was further notified that failing to offer security, the properties, which were scheduled in the notices would be attached conditionally. As no security was offered, conditional attachment of the immovable properties was made vide orders dated 12.1.2004 and 16.4.2004.

4. Thereafter, the arbitration proceedings in ARC No.83/2004 was withdrawn and enquiry u/s 81 of the Act was ordered vide order dated 22.12.2004 and an order u/s 87 of the Act came to be passed on 11.5.2005 directing the 3^rd respondent and another to pay a sum of Rs.38,20,388/- jointly and severally with interest at 18% p.a. till realisation of the funds by the bank. Thereafter, the said order was put to execution in E.P. No.2/2004 and the properties attached u/s 167 of the Act was brought to sale for realising the amount payable by the judgment debtors.

5. In the said backdrop, the District Registrar issued a demand notice dated 15.6.2005 u/s 143 r/w Rule 126 of the Act to the appellant herein, viz., the wife of the 3^rd respondent, which was acknowledged and received by the appellant on 17.6.2005 and the sale notice was acknowledged and received on 12.7.2005. On 22.7.2005, the properties were sold through public auction in which the 1^st respondent purchased the property.

6. After auction sale of the property, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No.102/2005 to set aside the aforesaid sale dated 22.7.2005, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2012, which was, thereafter, challenged by filing CRP (NPD) No.759/2013, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2013. Aggrieved by the same, SLP No.8546/2014 was preferred, which was also dismissed on 11.4.2014.

7. In the interregnum, the auction purchaser, viz., the 1^st respondent he