Gopalakrishna Naicker vs Viswanatha Iyer (Dead) and Others

This petition, which originally same before Abdur Rahim, J., had been posted before a Bench because the learned Judge doubted Anantha Lakshmi Ammal v. Sankaran Nair 18 Ind. Cas. 579 and Subbarayudu v. Lakshminarasamma 22 Ind. Cas. 193 Confining ourselves to the facts of this case, we are clearly of opinion that the petitioner who acquired a mortgage interest after the Court sale is not a person entitled to apply to set aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. A person having an interest in the property acquired before the sale is authorised to apply to set aside the sale. The petitioner has acquired an interest, but acquired it after the sale and, therefore, does not some within the rule. As regards the further contention that he made the application to set aside the sale as agent of the owner, the judgment-debtor, the loner Court has found as a fact that he did not, and we cannot interfere in revision. The petition is dismissed with costs.