JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. 1. Opposite party No 3, filed a suit, in the year 1975, against the opposite party Nor 4 for recovery of money. It was decreed on 11-7-1979 for a sum of Rs. 1626/-, 2. The said decree was put in execution (Execution case No. 34 of 1981) in the court of learned Munsif, Hamirpur. It was allowed. The disputed property was sold in execution of the decree on 7-10-1988. The opposite party No. 5 was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted. He deposited one fourth of the audtion money on the same day and the balance amount was deposited thereafter. The sale was confirmed. The petitioner filed an objection Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC en the ground that he has purchased the property on 6-2-1986 for valuable consideration. His name was also mutated. He has entered in possession of the same. He was not aware of any proceedings pending in the Court. 3. Another objection was filed by the opposite party No. 4, the judgment-debtor, under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on the ground that the decree has already been adjusted between the parties outside the court. The entire decree stood satisfied. The notice of the execution case was not served on him. The auction proceeding is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned Munsif vide order dated 15-2-1989 rejected the objection of the petitioner as well as of the opposite party No 4. Against this order only the petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, Hamirpur; It was dismissed on 12-8-1991, against which the present writ petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The case set up by the petitioner in his objection under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC was that he purchased the property on 6-2-1986 for a valuable consideration without any notice of the litigation. Admittedly the execution proceedings commenced in the year 1981. The land in dispute was attached on 26-7- 1982, though the judgment-debtor had filed an application for recalling the attachment order but it was not recalled. Thus on 6-2-1986 when the property was sold to the petitioner the land was under attachment The auction sale took place on 7-10-1988. On the date of the auction the decree-holder had deposited Rs. The land in dispute was attached on 26-7- 1982, though the judgment-debtor had filed an application for recalling the attachment order but it was not recalled. Thus on 6-2-1986 when the property was sold to the petitioner the land was under attachment The auction sale took place on 7-10-1988. On the date of the auction the decree-holder had deposited Rs. 6500/- and the balance amount was deposited on 18-10-1988, which had been accepted. There was no irregularity in the auction proceedings. The sale was confirmed. 6. Once the sale is confirmed the title passes to the auction purchaser and it releates back to the date of sale as provided under section 65 Civil Procedure Code. After confirmation of sale in favour of the auction purchaser, the judgment-debtor's right comes to an end. Reference may be made to the case The Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar v. Pandit Sadashiv Rao, JT 1991 (3) SC 75. The provision for sale of immovable property is contained in Order 21 Rule 82 Civil Procedure Code according to which sale of immovable property in execution of the decree may be ordered by any court other than a court of Small Causes. In pursuance of the same if the sale has taken place, then an application for setting aside the sale can be filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89 Civil Procedure Code according to which where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree (any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person) may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in court- (1) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five percent of the purchase money ; and (2) for payment to the decree holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree holder. 7. Another provision in the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud is contained in Order 21 Rule 90. 8. 7. Another provision in the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud is contained in Order 21 Rule 90. 8. Order 21 Rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure provides that if any immovable property has been sold in execution of the decree, the decree holder or the purchaser or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are effected by the sale, may apply to the court to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. There is a State Amendment made in Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code which runs as follows : "Provided that no application to set aside the sale shall be entertained- (a) upon any ground which could have been taken by the appellant on or before the date on which the sale was drawn up and. (b) unless the appellant deposits such amount not exceeding 12% of the sum realised by sale or furnishes such security as the court may in its discretion fix except when the court for reasons to be recorded dispensed with the requirement of this clause. Provided further that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless upon the facts proved the court is satisfied that the appellant has sustained material injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud 9. It is evident from the record that the applications filed by the petitioner as well as judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code were not in accordance with the amendment made by the State. They could have been rejected only on the ground that there was no compliance of Order 21 Rule 90 (b) Civil Procedure Code. 10. After giving my careful consideration to the matter in hand I am of the view that the courts below were right in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code I find no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.