1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 27.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE

M.GOVINDARAJ

C.R.P.(NPD) No. 2012 of 2019

and

C.M.P.No. 13049 of 2019

M/s. Kiran Global Chems Limited,

Represented by its Director

Mr.R.Desikumar,

Vanjur, Karaikkal Taluk,

Karaikkal District.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. M/s. Syndicate Bank,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

T.Nagar Branch, Chennai – 17.

2. M.Balasubramanian,

Represented by his Power Agent

Mr.K.Selvam

3. M/s.Sankar Traders,

Registered Company,

51, Cathedral Road, Chennai – 86.

4. V.Subramaniyam

5. P.Maitili

S.N.Nadar (Died) Represented by Legal Heirs

Sathiyaseelan (Died) Represented by Legal Heirs

Rajasekaran (Died) Represented by Legal Heirs

6. N.Rettinamani

7. N.Sivagaminathan

http://www.judis.nic.in

2

8. D.Navaneethammal

9. D.Jayamammal

10. Shenbagapushpagathammal

11. Ramesh Babu

12. Senpagarajan

13. Nadarajaprabu

14. Pradeep

15. Prasanna

16. Dr.Samrat Asokan

17. Vijayasundar

18. Vijayasundari

19. Rethinamala

... Respondents

(*Respondents 3 to 19 are ex parte*)

20. D.Moorthy

...Auction Purchaser

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the proceedings in the Docket Order dated

06.06.2018 in EP.No.39/1997 in OS.No.2/1982 by the learned Additional

Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai and declare it “null and void”.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Wilson

Senior Counsel for

Mr.P. Raja

For Respondents : No appearance

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the subsequent purchaser

from the Judgment Debtor.

2. Originally a suit for recovery was filed by the Bank/1st

http://www.judis.nic.in

3

respondent on the basis of Mortgage Deed, against one S.N. Nadar.

The 2nd respondent herein was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit

as he claimed right over the properties through an agreement for sale.

The suit was decreed in the year 1991 and the same was confirmed by

this Court in Second Appeal.

3. The 2nd defendant discharged the debt to the Bank and got

the decree assigned in his favour. He filed an execution petition in the

year 1997 arraying the said S.N. Nadar as judgment debtor.

4. During the pendency of the execution petition, it appears that

there was some sale transaction, through which, the petitioner

purchased certain properties from the Judgment Debtor in the year

2003. The said S.N. Nadar died and his legal heirs are impleaded as

Judgment Debtors and they remained exparte in the execution

proceedings. The execution Court ordered proclamation of sale and

fixed the upset price at Rs.1,90,90,000/- on 19.09.2016. Since the sale

could not fructify, on the petition filed by the decree holder, the upset

price was reduced to Rs.1,10,00,000/- on 2.4.2018.

5.The relevant portion of the proceedings of the Execution Court

is extracted hereunder;

http://www.judis.nic.in

4

02.04.2018

EA.242/17 is pending. Upset price fixed at

Rs.1,10,00,000/-.

Proclamation of sale on 4.6

further hearing-6.6

Batta within 3 days.

06.06.2018

Sale proclamation - Proclaimed by beat of Tom Tom

Order to Nazir - Court notice board affixed

sale warrant - property SL.No.1 to 10 sold for

Rs.1,11,00,000/-

No sitting, hence posted to 07.06.2018

07.06.2018

sale proclamation - proclaimed by beat of Tom Tom

Order to Nazir - Court Notice Board affixed

Sale warrant - property Sl.No.1 to 10 sold for

Rs.1,11,00,000/- (One Crore and eleven lakhs only)

Claim petition and stay petition filed. Taken on file as

per EA.139/2018, EA.140/18.'

6. The proclamation was made by beat of Tom Tom and affixed

on the Court notice board and the property was sold for

Rs.1,11,00,000/- to the 20th respondent herein. At that juncture, the

petitioner filed two execution applications viz., E.A.No.139 and 140 of

2018. Both the applications were dismissed holding that the petitioner is

not a bonafide p