M. B. VISHWANATH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor The respondent decree holder though served - absent. ( 2 ) IN this revision petition, the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor has challenged the order passed by the Small Cause Judge, Mysore, on 13-1-1995 on LA. No. II filed by the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor in Ex. No. 368 of 1993. ( 3 ) LA. No. II was filed by the 3rd J-Dr. under Order 21, Rule 83 of CPC praying that the sale of the property should be postponed to enable him to raise loan by mortgaging or by private sale of the portion of the mortgage property. He prayed that the sale be postponed by 3 months. ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge rejected LA. No. II and came to the right conclusion on other grounds though he did not refer to the relevant provision in CPC. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the decree was a mortgage decree. Order 21, Rule 83 (3), CPC says that nothing in Order 21, Rule 83, shall be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sale in enforcement of a mortgage. In view of this provision Order 21, Rule 83 (3), when the decree is a mortgage decree and the property is ordered to be sold in execution of the decree for sale in enforcement of the mortgage, the Executing Court has no power to postpone the sale. Hence, the revision petition is rejected. --- *** --- .