7The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner had a prior charge over the property
which is sold in auction. He pointed out that in the
dispute filed by the petitioner before the Co-operative
Court, an order of temporary injunction was passed on
20thAugust 1990 by which the 2ndrespondent was
restrained from disposing of the property in question.
He pointed out that the order continued to operate till
the disposal of the dispute. An award was made on 9th
July 1991 in the said dispute which permitted the
petitioner to recover the amount by the sale of the said
property. He invited my attention to the order of
attachment of the suit property dated 24th August 1994
passed by the Special Recovery Officer. He submitted
that an objection to the sale was raised by the
petitioner way back in the year 2007 by making an
application at Exh.42. He submitted that though the
trial Court permitted the intervention by the petitioner,
Prayer (b) for recovery of the amount of sale proceeds
was postponed till the sale was confirmed. He pointed
out that even in the First Appeal preferred by the second
respondent against the decree passed in favour of the 1st
respondent, an application for intervention was made.
He also pointed out that the application for intervention
was made in the suit filed by the first respondent. He
pointed out that a pursis filed by the first respondent
in the suit stating that in the execution of the decree,
notice will be issued to the petitioner. He stated that
in view of the said pursis, the petitioner did not press
the application made for intervention in the suit. He
