JUDGMENT

Confronted with Ext.P4 order passed in EA No.453/2021 in EA No.165/2016 in EA No.601/2009 in EP No.335/2001 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, the judgment debtors in the execution petition has filed the original petition. The 1st respondent is the decree holder and the 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser in the execution petition.

2. The relevant facts leading to Ext.P4 order, in a nut shell, are: the 1st respondent Bank had filed the suit for realization of money against the petitioner. The suit was decreed and the 1st respondent laid the decree to execution. The court below directed the execution schedule property to be sold in public auction, which was conducted on 09.06.2009. The 2nd respondent had purchased the property for an amount of Rs.16,15,000/-. Later, the petitioners filed EA No.601/2009, under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “Code”), to set aside the sale. Then, the 2nd respondent filed EA No.165/2016 to deliver possession of the property. Unfortunately, EA No.601/2009 was dismissed for default. Later, the petitioners filed EA Nos.204/2016, 205/2016 and 206/2016 to restore EA No.601/2009, to condone the dela