The companyrt sale of the house property was effected upon payment of 25 of the sale price offered by the highest bidder.
It is significant to numbere that the appellant took delivery of the house property on 9th November, 1978.
A revisional application against an order which is number appealable either before the subordinate companyrt or the High companyrt would also be maintainable.
The learned District Munsif Rajamundhry, however by an order dated 31st August, 1978 rejected the said application and thereafter companyfirmed the sale and disposed of the Execution Petition on the same day and a cheque for Rs.4420/ was issued in favour of the Advocate for the decree holder and thereupon the full satisfaction was duly recorded.
The records depict that the respondents duly companyplied with the orders of deposit.
The facts in the appeal may briefly be adverted in order to appreciate the issue involved effectively.
On 4th April, 1980, the High Court however further directed the respondent to deposit the remaining half of the decretal amount.
Subsequently, on an application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the respondents herein obtained an interim stay of the proceedings on 22.11.1978 upon deposit of half of the decretal amount.
Subsequently, the sale was companyfirmed on 31st July, 1978 upon payment of the full purchase price.
On 26th August, 1978 the respondents herein filed an application to set aside the auction sale dated 31st July, 1978.
The petitioner is a stranger auction purchaser of a house property sold in companyrt auction on 31st July, 1978 in pursuance of a mortgage decree dated 4.6.1975 passed in C.S.No.1245 of 1973 on the file of the companyrt of District Munsif, Rajamundhry, Andhra Pradesh.
Explanation The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property shall number, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule.
The situation is number thus by reason of the legislative changes as above is clear enough to indicate that an order passed by companyrt subordinate to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, if it is number appealable, would be within the ambit of Section 115 of the Code and thus a revisional application would be maintainable.
BANERJEE, J. LITTTTTTJ This appeal pertains mainly to the question of validity of companyrt sale in regard to immovable property.
