ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 03.12.2021 passed in E.A.No.2 of 2019 in E.P.No.42 of 2017 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi.

2.The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.12 of 2015 and the respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants. There was a sale agreement dated 08.02.2012 entered between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents 2 to 4 as advance by cheque and he was always ready to pay the balance amount. However, the respondents 2 to 4 did not come forward to register the sale deed and hence, the petitioner was constrained to file the above suit for specific performance against the respondents 2 to 4 in O.S.No.12 of 2015 before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi. Subsequently, the case was referred to Lok Adalat and there was a settlement between the parties and an award was passed on 12.11.2016 recording the terms of settlement. In accordance with the terms of settlement, the second respondent ought to have paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of one year and the first installment of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in the month of January 2017 to the petitioner. It was also recorded that any delay in payment, would carry 6% interest. It is further stated that the respondents 2 to 4 did not come forward to pay the amount as per the Lok Adalat award. Hence, he preferred an execution petition in E.P.No.42 of 2017 before the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, for attachment and sale of the suit property by Court auction. On 24.07.2019 the suit property was brought for auction with an upset price of Rs.11,50,000/-. Since there was no bidder in the said auction, the auction again was again conducted on 06.11.2019, in which, the first respondent was the highest bidder in the said auction for a sum of Rs.10,31,000/- and he immediately deposited a sum of Rs.2,57,750/- being 25% of the value of the sale. It is further stated that he was hoping that the first respondent will pay the remaining 75% amount within the time stipulated.

3.To his shock and surprise, the first respondent instead of paying the remaining amount, he filed an application in E.A.No.2 of 2019, to set aside the Court auction conducted on 06.11.2019 and to return the ¼ the sale consideration along with poundage amount of Rs.2,57,750/-. In the said application, the first respondent stated that on seeing Dinamalar Newspaper advertisement, dated 06.11.2019, he came to know that the Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Thoothukudi, has a charge over the suit schedule properties through registered mortgage deed, dated 27.03.2012. In the said petition, it is further alleged that the aforesaid details were not mentioned in the sale proclamation. Therefore, the petitioner contested the said application by filing his counter stating that there was no suppression of facts and that along with sale Isthyar he had included the updated Encumbrance Certificate and sale affidavit disclosing that the property is under mortgage before the Indian Overseas Bank. However, on 03.12.2021, the learned Judge allowed the said application by giving an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and thereby set aside the sale held on 06.11.2019 by granting relief to the first respondent to get back the deposit of 1/4th of the sale consideration and also to recover the poundage amount of Rs.2,57,750/- from the petitioner.

Assailing the said order, the petitioner has filed the above revision.

4.In pursuant to the order passed in the above application, the first respondent is taking steps to withdraw the amount deposited before the Court and also taking steps to initiate recovery against the petitioner to recover the poundage amount. Hence, the order pas