towards stamp duty. After the sale was held and before it was confirmed, the decree holder himself filed E.A.No.464 of 2003 under Order XXI rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale held on 23.8.2003. The said application was rested on the plea that the property which was brought to sale and sold on 23.8.2003 was attached and sold on 16.8.2003 in execution of the decree in O.S.No.291 of 2002, yet another suit filed by him against the very same judgment debtor pursuant to the order passed in E.P.398 of 2002, that it was purchased by Sri.M.Viswanathan, son of Sankaran and that E.P.No.398 of 2002 in O.S.No.291 of 2002 stands posted for confirmation of the sale on 28.10.2003. He contended that it was without noticing this fact that the very same property which was sold on 16.8.2003 in execution of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.291 of 2002 was brought to sale and sold on 23.8.2003 in execution of the decree in O.S.No.732 of 1998. E.A.No.464 of 2003 in E.P.No.101 of 2002 in O.S.No.732 of 1998 was heard and allowed by order passed on 26.2.2004. On 26.2.2004 itself the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder made an endorsement on E.P.No.101 of 2002 in O.S.No.732 of 1998 to the effect that the execution petition is not pressed. Later, at the instance of the petitioners herein, the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.732 of 1998 on 19.10.2000 was set aside by order passed on 17.12.2005 on I.A.No.4326 of 2004. In the
