JUDGEMENT :- The facts of this execution second appeal lie on a narrow ambit. The decree-holder-respondent No. 2 is the father of the auction-purchaser-respondent No. 1. The former is hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder and the latter as the auction-purchaser. The decree-holder obtained a money decree against the judgement debtor-appellant. The said decree was an ex parte decree. The judgement-debtor applied under O.9 R.13 of the Civil P.C. for setting aside the said decree. While the restoration application was still pending, the decree-holder applied for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the Bhumidhari land of the judgement-debtor. In the said execution case, about 24 bighas of land belonging to the judgement-debtor was attached and was purchased by the auction-purchaser for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and the sale was duly confirmed. Thereafter, the ex parte decree was set aside by the trial court.

2. After the ex parte decree had been set aside the judgement-debtor applied for restitution under S.144 read with S.47 of the Civil P.C. According to the judgement-debtor, the property had been purchased by the decree-holder himself in the name of his son. He fur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document