K. Pitchammal vs V. Perumal and Others

K.K. Sasidharan, J—The third respondent availed loan from the second respondent. The petitioner stood as guarantor. Since the third respondent failed to pay the remaining instalments, the second respondent initiated proceedings in C.D. No. 58 of 2005. The second respondent obtained a decree and thereafter filed E.P. No. 142 of 2006 for execution. The executing Court without issuing proper notice to the petitioner sold her residential property situated at Madurai South. The property was sold in public auction after fixing the upset price at Rs. 9,58,000/-. The bid submitted by the first respondent was accepted by the executing Court. The executing Court issued a sale certificate and thereafter closed the execution petition on 29 July 2011.

The petitioner alleging fraud against her own counsel and the second respondent besides the auction purchaser filed application before the executing Court to set aside the sale. The executing Court rejected the contention taken by the petitioner. The petitioner now seeks to set aside the sale made in favour of the first respondent.

The factual matrix shows that the property in question was sold for a sum of Rs. 9,58,000/-. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs. 80,000/- towards registration charges. The second respondent after realisation of the decree amount reported full satisfaction in E.P. No. 142 of 2006.

The second respondent thereafter requested the executing Court to appropriate the balance amount towards claim in E.P. No. 52 of 2006. The executing Court allowed the said prayer and the same resulted in closing the executing petition in E.P. No. 52 of 2006.

During the currency of the civil revision petition and pursuant to the order passed by this Court the second respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 6,40,985/- before the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

This matter was heard at length on several occasions. The parties have finally agreed to settle the matter, in the following manner:

(i) The first respondent has agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 13,25,000/- from the petitioner and withdraw from the sale. The first respondent agreed to receive the amount in full quit. The said amount includes a sum of Rs. 9,58,000/- deposited by the first respondent besides Rs. 80,000/- towards registration charges and interest.

(ii) The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- today to the first respondent. The first respondent acknowledges the receipt of the said amount.

(iii) The first respondent/auction purchaser is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 6,40,985/- deposited in E.P. No. 142 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,40,985/- to the second respondent, who is the petitioner in the execution petition on or before 14 August 2015.

(v) The petitioner is directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 5,84,015/- to the first respondent/auction purchaser on or before 14 August 2015.

(vi) The payment indicated above would satisfy the entire decree amount, which is the subject matter in E.P. Nos. 142 of 2006 and 52 of 2006. In short, on payment of the amount as indicated above, there would be no further claim on the part of second respondent as against the petitioner or the third respondent.

(vii) The amount should be paid to the auction purchaser and the second respondent as indicated above by way of demand draft on or before 14 August 2015.

(viii) The auction purchaser agreed to return the movables to the petitioner on or before 10 June 2015 under due acknowledgment.

Since, it is a consent order, the parties are directed to adhere to the terms and conditions and the time schedule as indicated above.

The civil revision petition is disposed of with above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2015 is closed.