Padmini & Ors. vs Mayavaram Chits Corporation Limited & Ors.

The judgment debtors are the civil revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order in I.A.No.48 of 2001 in E.P.No.1 of 2000, dated

10.08.2005, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

The case of the petitioners/judgment debtors is that one Mr.S.Selvarajan, who is the 2nd respondent herein and the 1st judgment debtor has

took a chit amount of Rs.2,10,000/- on 17.08.1996 from the 1st respondent Mayavaram Chits Corporation Limited, Mayiladuthurai. One

Mr.V.Ramamoorthy, who is the husband of the deceased/2nd defendant in A.R.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the learned 1st Additional Subordinate

Judge, Cuddalore and also the guarantor to the 2nd respondent Mr.S.Selvarajan, has given sureties to the 2nd respondent. Originally the said

Mr.V.Ramamoorthy has shifted his residence to the present disputed property situated at Door No.88, Senthamarai Nagar, Manjakuppam,

Cuddalore-1, by constructing a single storied building.

The further case of the petitioners/judgment debtors is that on 24.09.1996, the 1st petitioner''s husband deceased Mr.V.Ramamoorthy, who is

the 2nd respondent in the said A.R.No.2 of 1999, he stood as a guarantor and pledged his properties at Door No.88, Senthamarai Nagar,

Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. Thereafter, on 03.10.1996, the 1st respondent Mayavaram Chits Corporation Limited fas disbursed the amount to the

2nd respondent Mr.S.Selvarajan.

Due to non payment of the amount borrowed by the 2nd respondent Mr.S.Selvarajan, the 1st respondent Mayavaram Chits Corporation

Limited had filed A.R.No.2 of 1999 on 14.07.1999 before the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, stating that the 2nd respondent

S.Selvarajan, had paid only a sum of Rs.1,65,725/- and failed to pay the balance amount and hence for recovery of the balance amount, the above

petition was filed and the said A.R.No.2 of 1999 was decreed exparte as the borrower/2nd petitioner has showed no interest to contest the said

case.

Thereafter, on 26.10.1999, the 1st respondent Chit Fund had filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.1 of 2000 for executing the above exparte

decree in A.R.No.2 of 1999 dated 14.07.1999 and the petitioners property was brought for auction and the 3rd respondent Mr.R.Narayanan,

who is the successful auction purchaser and the said property was auctioned for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-. On 05.02.2001, the

petitioners/guarantors got knowledge about the entire proceedings referred above as the auction purchaser came for delivery of the property,

which were possession of the petitioners.

Immediately, the petitioners were filed E.A.No.48 of 2001 under Section 47 of the C.P.C. for the prayer is as follows:

(i)declare that the above award is inexecutable.

(ii)declare that the entire execution proceedings are illegal, null and void and to determine all questions relating to execution.

(iii)award costs of the petition and

(iv)to grant such other reliefs as the Court thinks fit and necessary

In the petition, the petitioners were stated that though the 1st petitioner''s husband deceased Mr.V.Ramamoorthy was a guarantor only they

were informed the 1st respondent that they were shifted their house from the rented house from the Housing Board Colony to the newly

constructed house in the year 1996 itself. At the time of mortgaging the property at Door No.88, Senthamarai Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore,

as a vacant site. But, however, the 1st respondent colluding with the 2nd respondent had fraudulently sent all the summons and service of notice to

the petitioners to his earlier address i.e. Housing Board address at Cuddalore. But, no summons were issued by the 1st respondent to the

petitioners to the newly address.

Admittedly, the 1st respondent Chit Fund has filed the above Execution Petition in E.P.No.1 of 2000 for sale of the petitioners property, which

was given as guarantee and the 3rd respondent was the successful bidder in the Court auction and the sale certificate also issued to the 3rd

respondent on 11.09.2000. Pursuant to that the 3rd respondent has filed an application for delivery of the property, since the fraud has been

committed by the colluding respondents 1 and 2, the award passed in A.R.No.2 of 1999 dated 14.07.1999 is in executable.

The petitioner further states that as per the orders passed in S.A.No.354 of 2001 dated 11.12.2002, these petitioners were impleaded as

parties/respondents, who are the legal heirs of 2nd respondent/guarantor in A.R.No.2 of 1999 and no notice or summons were sent to the

petitioners, since, the 1st respondent Chit Fund has well aware the petitioners are residing at No.88, Senthamarai Nagar, Manjakuppam,

Cuddalore-1, in the disputed property, but summons were wantonly taken to earlier address.

The petitioners also states that the property is worth about Rs.10,00,000/-, which is sought to be taken by the 3rd respondent for a very low

amount. Therefore, the auction sale is vitiated by fraud and abuse of Court of law. In the delivery proceedings, the petitioners must be put on

notice about the delivery petition, but wrong address was given by the 3rd respondent and the Court below passed the exparte order of delivery.

It is further case of the petitioners/guarantors that no proper proceedings have been followed and the steps taken by the 3rd respondent in the

execution proceedings is sustainable, since the 3rd respondent is not entitled to take delivery of the property mentioned in the petition, because, he

is not the bonafide auction purchaser. A fraud has been committed by the respondents, therefore, the Court below having right to entertain the

petition filed in E.A.No.48 of 2001 and the Court below should determine all the questions in the petition filed under Section 47 of C.P.C.

Therefore, the petitioners were filed the said application to declare that the above award is inexecutable and declare that the entire execution

proceedings are illegal, null and void and to determine all questions relating to execution.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent alone and other respondents have not filed any counter.

In the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent Chit Fund has states that the petitioners are the guarantors and their liability are coextensive with

that of the Principal Debtor. That is, the petitioner Mr.V.Ramamoorthy also equally liable and he cannot escape in the liability.

In the counter, the 1st respondent states that the allegations that he constructed the building at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/- and after construction

he shifted to the newly built house in the year 1996 itself after informing the 1st respondent is totally false, since the deceased Mr.V.Ramamoorthy,

has not at all informed the newly address till date.

The 1st respondent also states that there is no necessity to the 1st respondent to collude with the 2nd respondent, since being a Public Limited

Company is interested in realising the amounts from the defaulting subscribers, in order to disburse to the other subscribers to whom the 1st

respondent has to pay legally. Only in the interest of the Public, who are subscribers with the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is keen in

collecting the arrears from the defaulters and the 2nd respondent is a defaulter. Therefore, there is no question arose to colluded with the 2nd

respondent.

The 1st respondent also states that since the executing Court which is cannot go behind the award passed and the allegations of the fraud has

been committed by the colluding respondents 1 and 2, is totally false. The 1st respondent also states that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved with

the award or desires to question the award, he should approach only the proper forum, if so advised and he has absolutely no right to agitate about

the award in the Executing Court.

The 1st respondent also states that no notice or summons were sent to the 1st respondent deceased Mr.V.Ramamoorthy in the trial side or in

the execution side are totally false and at every stage, including newspaper publication, as per the orders of the Court concerned.

The 1st respondent also denied that the petitioners are residing at No.88, Senthamarai Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore-1 and the 1st

respondent took notices and summons only to the address furnished by the deceased Mr.V.Ramamoorthy at the time when he offered and

executed the security bond. Later, till date the alleged change of address has not been intimated to the respondents.

The 1st respondent also states that the Court Amin inspected, tested and valued the property correctly, it is not worth more than

Rs.10,00,000/-. The value has been highly exaggerated for the purpose of the petition. The sale is purely legal, the sale is not initiated by fraud and

abuse of process of Court as falsely contended by the petitioners/guarantors. To the knowledge of the 1st respondent, notice in the delivery

proceedings has been taken by the 3rd respondent in proper manner and Proper and legal procedures have been followed, since the 3rd

respondent is a bonafide purchaser in the Court auction sale. Therefore, the 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of the application in E.A.No.48 of

2000.

There is no counter filed by the 2nd respondent, who is the original borrower and the 3rd respondent, who is the auction purchaser.

Considering both side cases, the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, has dismissed the application on 10.08.2005, on the

ground that though the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 47 of C.P.C. for not to execute the decree in A.R.No.2 of 1999.

The learned Judge further states that earlier the petitioners were filed E.A.No.47 of 2001 for setting aside the order passed in E.A.No.331 of

2000 under Order 21 Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale dated 19.06.2000.

The learned Judge also states that in the petition in E.A.No.48 of 2001, one of the petitioner Mr.Vijayakumar has examined as PW1 in which

he deposed that he produced the document Exs.A1 to A3, which is Grahapravesa Card, Payment of electricity bill to the Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board and on behalf of the respondents, the 3rd petitioner Narayanan was examined as DW1 and the 1st respondent Rangarajan as DW2 and

produced the agreement in Exs.B1, B2, B3 and B4 which are the receipt and vouchers.

While pendency of the said application, the 1st petitioner V.Ramamoorthy was died, therefore, the petitioners 2 to 4 impleaded as Legal heirs

of the deceased V.Ramamoorthy. When the 3rd respondent has filed E.A.No.331 of 2000 and pending for enquiry, the application in E.A.No.48

of 2001 was filed. In all the notice and summons were sent by the 1st respondent also to the Court in the address given by the deceased

V.Ramamoorthy and no new address viz., No.88, Senthamarai Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore was given by the deceased V.Ramamoorthy,

since the deceased V.Ramamoorthy has executed Ex.B4.

Apart from this, it is the case of the petitioners is that the property worth about Rs.10,00,000/- and above, but they have not produced any

documents to prove that the property is worth about Rs.10,00,000/-. The 3rd respondent has produced a judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC

1731 passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that if the auction sale amount is low, the Court should not set aside the auction sale and on the

ground that the auction sale was meagre. Therefore, considering all the points, the learned Judge please to dismiss the application in E.A.No.48 of

2001 on 10.08.2005. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/guarantors before this Court.

I heard Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Visvassoundaran for M/s.A.Chari and Antoni Associates, learned counsel

for the 1st respondent, Mrs.C.Uma, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 and perused the records.

The learned counsel for the petitioner put forth his arguments that the entire proceedings was a fraud and done with collusion of borrower and

Chit Fund Company. When the petitioners were moved on 16.09.1996 from the rental building to the present suit property and the 1st respondent

Chit Fund well aware that the petitioners were shifted their address to the present property, but no notice or summons were sent to the present

address and the entire execution proceedings were done behind his back without following the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 54

and Order 21 Rule 66 and 67.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the the borrower and the auction purchaser whose standing were the respondents

2 and 3 herein are neighbours to each other as they resides on adjacent property situated in Rajammal Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. Since,

the value of the property was Rs.10,00,000/- and the Court was auctioned the property is meagre amount of Rs.1,75,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued on the main point saying that in the Court auction, the 3rd respondent alone participated and

there was no other participants, according to him, the procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 51(2) was purposefully given a go by and the

lower Court acted in a mechanical manner and forget to apply its mind properly and thereby allowing fraud being committed by the 2nd

respondent in grabbing mind. The Lower Court must have properly apply its mind and pass appropriate orders in E.A.No.48 of 2001 for setting

aside the sale. To substantiate the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the following judgments:

(1987) 4 SCC 717

The court has a duty to see that the requirements of Order 21 Rule 66 are properly complied with. It is desirable at least in cases of

sale of valuable property that the courts make its valuation and enter it in the sale proclamation, though it may not be necessary for the

court to do so in every case. The sale proclamation should not be prepared in a routine fashion. No action of the court or its officers

should be such as to give rise to the criticism that it was done in an indifferent or casual way(obiter) (Para 3).

(2008) 3 SCC 113

When a property is put up for auction to satisfy a decree of the court, it is mandatory for the court executing the decree, to comply

with the following a stages before a property is sold in execution of a particular decree;

(a) Attachment of the immovable property;

(b)Proclamation of sale by public auction;

(c) Sale by public auction.

11.Each stage of the sale is governed by the provisions of the code. For the purpose of the present case, the relevant provisions are

Order 21 Rule 54 and Order 21 Rule 66. At each stage of the execution of the decree, when a property is sold, it is mandatory that

notice shall be served upon the person whose property is being sold in execution of the decree, and any property which is sold,

without notice to the person whose property is being sold is a nullity, and all actions pursuant thereto are liable to be struck

down/quashed.

12.The admitted position that has emerged is that:

(i) There was no notice served upon the judgment - debtor under Order 21 Rule 54 (1 -A).

(ii) There was no valuation of the property carried out.

(iii) There was no proclamation of sale as per the statutory provisions of the M.P.Civil Court Rules, 1961 read with Order 21 Rule

66.

(iv) There was no publication of the sale.

In DeshBandhu Gupta case, it was held as follows: (SCC pp.143-44, para 9)

9.....The Proclamation should include the estimate, if any, given by either judgment- debtor or decree holder or both the parties.

Service of Notice on judgment-debtor under Order 21 Rule 66 (2) unless waive by appellants or remained ex-parte, is a fundamental

step in the procedure of the Court in execution; judgment-debtor should have an opportunity to give his estimate of the property. The

estimate of the value of the property is a material fact to enable the purchaser to know its value. It must be verify as accurately and

fairly as possible so that the intending bidders are not mislead or to prevent them from offering inadequate price or to enable them to

make a decision in offering adequate price. In Gajadhar Prasad Vs. Babu Bhakta Ratan, this Court after noticing the conflict of

judicial opinion among the High Courts, said that a review of the authorities as well as amendments to Rule 66(2)(e) make it

abundantly clear that the Court, when stating the estimated value of the property to be sold, must not accept the ipse dixit of one side.

It is certainly not necessary for it to state its own estimate But, the essential facts which had a bearing on the very material question of

value of the property and which could assist the purchaser in forming his own opinion must be stated, i.e. the value of the property,

that is, after all, the whole object of Order XXI, Rule 66(2)(e) CPC. The Court has only to decide what are all these material

particular in each case. We think that this is an obligation imposed by Rule 66(2)(e). In discharging it, the Court normally state the

valuation given by both the Decree Holder as well as the Judgment Debtor where they both have valued the property, and it does not

appear fantastic.

The absence of Notice causes irremediable injury to the judgment debtor. Equally publication of the proclamation of sale under Rule

67 and specifying the date and place of sale of the property under Rule 66(2) are intended so that the prospective bidders would

know the value so as to make up their mind to offer the price and to attempt that sale of the property and to secure competitive

bidders and fair price to the property sold. Absence of Not to the Judgment Debtor disables him to offer his estimate of the value

who better know its value and to publicise on his part, canvassing and bringing the intended bidders at the time of sale. Absence of

notice prevents him to do the above and also disables him to know fraud committed in the publication and conduct of sale or other

material irregularities in the conduct of sale. It would be broached from yet another angle. The compulsory sale of immovable

property under Order 21 divests right, title and interest of the judgment debtor and confers those rights, in favour of the purchaser. It

thereby deals with the rights and disabilities either of the judgment debtor or the decree holder. A sale made, therefore, without notice

to the judgment debtor is a nullity since it divests the judgment debtor of his right, title and interest in his property without an

opportunity. The jurisdiction to sell the property would arise in a Court only where the owner is given notice of the execution for

attachment and sale of his property. It is very salutary that a person''s property cannot be sold without his being told that it is being so

sold and given an opportunity to offer his estimate as he is the person who intimately knew the value of his property and prevailing in

the locality, exaggeration at time be possible.

In M/s.Shalimar cinema v. Bhasin Film Corporation and Another [1987 (4) SCC 717] it was held that the court has a duty to

ensure that the requirement of order 21 Rule 66 has properly applied. It is incumbent on the court to be scrupulous in the extreme.

The records do not reveal that the appellantjudgment debtor was served with a notice as required under Order 21 Rule 54(1)(A)

of the Code in the appendix B Forms 23, 24 and it is to be noted that the records reveal that the address of the appellant as

contained in the sale deed was different from the address at which the process server purportedly affixed the notice on the door and

in open court and at the chorah only. It has also to be noted that under Order 21 Rule 66(2) the service of the notice has to be

personally affected on the judgment debtor. That also does not appear to have been done. Interestingly, the valuation of the property

as required to be done under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of Order 21 of the Code has not been done. The same appears

to have been valued on the spot at Rs.9,00,000/- and it was not done by the Court. There are admittedly other non-compliance with

certain requirements. We do not think it necessary to deal with those aspects in detail in view of the order proposed to be passed.

From the records it is revealed that Rs.14,38,893/- and Rs.4,46,926/- have been deposited by the appellant purportedly for

satisfaction of the Execution Court Ujjain and Indore respectively. The appellant shall further deposit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- within

4 months from today. The respondent No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited in the bank with accrued interest. The

appellant shall be responsible for payment of the property tax of the property from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 05.12.1986

till date and the same shall be paid deposited with the concerned authority within the aforesaid period of four months. On payment of

the amounts, the title to the property described in the registered sale deed will vest free of all encumbrances on the appellant.

16.If any property of the respondent No.1 is there in the property in question, the same shall vest to respondent No.1 with liberty to

remove them as soon as the payment is made.

17.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

(2012) 11 SCC 511

The sum and substance of this judgment is that "" Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should made

expeditiously. But it does not mean that the financial institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be

permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary

manner in fiagrant violation of the statutory provisions.(Para 13)

The recovery of the public dues must be made strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. A right to hold property

is a constitutional right as well as a human right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance with the

provisions of a statute. Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone''s property or disposing of the secured assets is that

the authority must ensure compliance with the statutory provisions.(para 28 and 14)

In case the property is disposed of by private treaty without adopting any other mode provided under the statutory rules, etc. there

may be a possibility of collusion/fraud and even when public auction is held, the possibility of collusion amongst the bidders cannot be

ruled out. A highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the

auction - sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the

bidders. (Para 15)

Therefore, it becomes a legal obligation on the part of the authority that property be sold in such a manner that it may fetch the best

price. Thus essential ingredients of such sale remain a correct valuation report and fixing the reserve price.(Para 17)

The word ""value"" means intrinsic worth or cost or price for sale of a thing/property. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the

property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably. ""Reserve price"" is the price with which the public auction starts and the

auction bidders are not permitted to give bids below the said price. i.e the minimum bids at auction. In case proper valuation has not

been made and the reserve price is fixed taking into consideration the inaccurate valuation report, the intending buyers may not come

forward treating the property as not worth purchase by them, as a moneyed person or a big businessman may not like to involve

himself in small sales/deals. ( Paras 18,24, 19 and 17)

Therefore, there must be an application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/accepting the report of the approved

valuer and fixing the reserve price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the borrower/guarantor and that would

amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings. Thus law requires a proper valuation report, its

acceptance by the authority concerned by application of mind and then fixing the reserve price accordingly and acceptance of the

auction bid taking into consideration that there was no possibility of collusion of the bidders.(Paras 22 and 24)

The authority is duty - bound to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the outstanding demand and to sell only

such property or a portion thereof as necessary to satisfy the decree.(Paras 24 and 23).

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 4, 5 and 6 as the 3rd respondent is no more had submitted that the entire sale was proper

and valuation was also done properly, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 further emphasized the fact that there was paper publication

issued prior to the sale and its confirmation and the sale cannot be set aside on the ground of lesser sale consideration and the respondents

desperately wants the property. There was no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has

adopted the arguments of the 3rd respondent.

The petitioners who shifted their residence to the present disputed property on 16.09.1996 and mortgaged the said property on 24.09.1996

was not in dispute. The further fact that the borrower 2nd respondent and the auction purchaser are neighbour''s was also not in dispute. It is made

clear that there was no other bidders except the 3rd respondent.

For verifying all the grounds by the petitioners, this Court call for the records from the lower Court to verify as to whether the entire exercise

are carry out by them. It is seen from the records that the entire Execution process was done in a mechanical manner, so as to say that the

procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 54(2) and Rule 67 were not properly executed. Order 21 Rule 54(2) and Rule 67 has stated as

follows:

Order 21 Rule 54(2):

.....

(2)The order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the

order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the court-house, and also, where the property is

land paying revenue to the Government, in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, [and, where the property is land

situate in a village, also in the office of the Gram Panchayat, if any, having jurisdiction over that village].

Order 21 Rule 67:

67.Mode of making proclamation.-(1) Every proclamation shall be made and published, as nearly as may be, in the manner prescribed by Rule 54,

sub-rule (2).

(2)Where the Court so directs, such proclamation shall also be published in the Official Gazette or in a local newspaper, or in both, and the costs

of such publication shall be deemed to be costs of the sale.

(3)Where property is divided into lots for the purpose of being sold separately, it shall not be necessary to make a separate proclamation for each

lot, unless proper notice of the sale cannot, in the opinion of the Court, otherwise be given.

On perusal of the records by me, it came to know that the valuation was done in the present case before the property was put in auction. It is

seen from the records that on 19.01.2000, the value of the property is Rs.1,75,000/- with a simple endorsement on the back of the application,

but what is the base of the valuation is not known.

It is alarming that there was no reference made before coming to the conclusion regarding the valuation of the property. Relying upon the said

valuation the Executing Court without even applying its mind as to the valuation had put the property for auction. The lower Court must have apply

its mind that it is not a contested case, since if it is a contested case, the other side who is going to be aggrieved naturally will make their objection

and then there will be an adjudication on the valuation. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has categorically emphasized in the above Judgments cited

supra.

Apart from this, the Court below have to seen on records that the borrower, who is the 2nd respondent has not shown any interest in

contesting the proceedings properly, even before this Court, there was no appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent. I have also seen that the

1st respondent also not seen properly that the 1st respondent to substantiate that they had proceeded against the borrower properly with an

intention to receive back the money, the borrower who had defaulted had gone scot free. This fact also substantiate the petitioner claim there was

a collusion and fraud which is being done behind the petitioners'' back.

It is my absolute view that right to hold the property is a constitutional right, when it is deprived, it should be done in a manner known to law

and following the mandates fixed by law to deprive the same, the Court should exercise the caution while dealing with these type of issues such as

here where a person has lost his property. Undoubtedly, the present case is a real fraud committed by the petitioners/guarantors had lost his

property and knocking this Court to save his right to hold their property and for setting aside the sale, the petitioners or aggrieved persons must

show that there was a substantial injury suffered by the said sale. In the present case, the petitioner, who stood as a guarantors had lost his

property. Whereas the 1st respondent, who had lend the money and the 3rd respondent auction purchaser, who had paid the money towards the

sale can both be compensated in terms of money, but wherein if the sale is not set aside, there will be a substantial injury caused to the petitioners/

guarantors.

Therefore, this Court warranting interference in the orders passed by the Court below in E.A.No.48 of 2001 in E.P.No.1 of 2000 dated

10.08.2005 and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.

In the result:

(a) this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order in E.A.No.48 of 2001 in E.P.No.1 of 2000, dated 10.08.2005, on the file of the

learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, is set aside and the auction sale dated 19.06.2000 is also set aside;

(b) the petitioners/guarantors are hereby directed to deposit the entire auction sale amount of Rs.1,75,000/- along with the interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date of auction i.e. on 19.06.2000 to till date, before the Executing Court namely, the learned 1st Additional Subordinate

Judge, Cuddalore, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(c) the auction purchaser shall be entitled to claim the amount by making necessary application before the Executing Court;

(d) the Executing Court namely, the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, is directed to pass orders for proclamation informing

the Registrar of Registration Department for making necessary entry to this effect and further make over to the petitioners/guarantors the stamps

purchased by the auction purchaser for the purpose of sale certificate;

(e) the learned Executing Court shall pass an order on the basis whereof the petitioners/guarantors would be entitled to receive back the amount of

the stamp duty although the same has been purchased in the name of the auction purchaser, who will be entitled to receive back the cash value

thereof;

(f) the learned Executing Court is directed to complete the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of deposit the said amount

of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rat of 9% per annum from the date of auction i.e. on 19.06.2000. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.