The execution process must adhere strictly to civil procedural rules, and failure to object in a timely manner undermines subsequent claims against the execution.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the 1st judgment debtor in EP.No. 844 of 2002 in O.S.No.318 of 1999 on the files of Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent is the decree holder in the above referred E.P and the 2nd respondent is the wife of the revision petitioner and 3rd respondent is the purchaser of the property. The suit O.S.No.318/1999 is filed by the 1st respondent bank is against the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent for realisation of money. The subject matter of the suit was settled in Adalat on 24/09/1999. Due to financial difficulties the revision petitioner could not pay the decree debt. The 1st respondent filed EP No.844/02 for realisation of Rs.4,04,961.89/-. The decree schedule property was proclaimed for sale and on 15/03/2004 the decree holder purchased the property for Rs.3,75,001/- and the sale was confirmed on 01/06/2004 and thereafter effected delivery of the property also to the decree holder bank. After getting title and possession over the property, the decree holder bank sold away the property to the 3rd respondent and now the 3rd respondent in possession and enjoyment of the property and he completed the construction of a building therein. While so, the revision petitioner /1st judgment debtor filed the above E.A. under Section 47 of the CPC contending that entire procedure adopted for proclamation and sale of the property was illegal and also to set aside the sale. After considering the contentions raised in the above E.A., the court below dismissed the petition. The legality and propriety in the findings of the court below is under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the revision petition. According to the learned counsel, the decision of the execution court is illegal, un sustainable and liable to be set aside. The main thrust of the argument is that the property in auction was having the extent of 8.90 ares with a pucca residential building therein. The decree holder perpetrated fraud upon the court below and purchased the property for a paltry sum. The property worth Rs.25,00,000/- was purchased for Rs.3,75,001/- by the decree holder/1st respondent.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

1st respondent bank advanced arguments to justify the impugned order under challenge. The learned counsel submits that the entire dispute was settled in adalath and the award was passed permitting the judgment debtor to pay the debt by instalments. But he has not remitted any of the instalments. The judgment debtor entered appearance in response to notice under Order 21 Rule 22 and thereafter he was present through out the proceedings. But he has not raised any objection at any of the stages under the proceedings under Order 21. The decree holder bid in auction with the permission of the court and after getting sale sannath and thereafter sold away the property to 3rd respondent and now the 3rd respondent is in possession and enjoyment. According to him the E.A. itself is not maintainable at this stage under Section 47 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he had purchased the property and completed the construction of the building and if any order is passed in derogation to the procedure completed earlier that will adversely affected him.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the execution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction or has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

5. Going by the impugned order it could be seen that the decree holder had filed EA 276/2004 seeking permission of the court to participate in the auction and the permission was obtained and thereafter the decree holder bid the property in public auction. Therefore, I find that the contention that permission of the court was not obtained before bid in auction is unsustainable under law. Similarly, it is