1. The petitioner in E.A. 57/75 who was also one of the respondents in E A. 1061/74 in E. P. 91/66 in O. S.38/60 on the file of the Quilon Sub-Court is the revision petitioner. His application to set aside the court sale of items Nos.1 to 7 in the proclamation schedule filed in execution of the decree in O.S. 38/60 was allowed by the Sub Court, Quilon, but dismissed in appeal by the District Court. While dismissing the appeal the District Judge observed that the application to set aside the sale was misconceived in the sense the petitioner who claims to be a purchaser under an earlier charged decree and who is in actual possession of the property can assert his rights is the property and also his right to remain in possession of it when he is sought to be dispossessed in execution of the present decree and the exact nature of his rights and the question whether these rights can prevail against the decree-holder are matters which are to be properly determined at that stage. The lower appellate court in so observing lost sight of the fact that the petitioner came to court on receiving a notice to show cause why he shall not be evicted from the properties to put the decree