(ii) Therefore, they would contend that since the property has been allotted to the share of the said Ganapathy Maniam, the same has been brought to sale by them in order to execute the money decree obtained by the deceased fourth respondent against the respondents 5 and 6 herein. The learned District Munsif, Srivilliputhur by his order dated 21.01.2008 was pleased to dismiss the said application. Challenging the same, the respondents 1 to 3/claimants had preferred C.M.A.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. The learned Subordinate Judge entertained the said appeal and proceeded to partly allow the said application by holding that the sale is not valid in respect of the 1/4th share of the respondents 1 to 3 in the petition schedule property. The said order has been challenged in this revision on the grounds that (a)civil miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable as against the order passed under Section 47 CPC; (b) if the application is treated as an obstruction petition, then it is only by way of regular appeal that the impugned order can be challenged; and (c) that all the parties have not been brought on record in the petition and therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder. He would also contend that the Section 47 petition filed by the respondents is also not maintainable, since the respondents are third parties to the proceeding and are not claiming under the parties to the proceeding.
