T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS CRP is against the order confirming the sale and issuance of sale certificate in favour of the second respondent, auction purchaser, and dismissing the application of the petitioner to set aside the sale by the Executing Court and which order has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. ( 2 ) THE shortfacts of the case are that the first respondent filed execution Petition No. 117/88 for recovery of Rs. 1,28,000/ -. The sale of Sy. No. 23/2, 23/6b, measuring 1 acre 29 guntas and 0-25 guntas respectively of Nimbekaipura village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bangalore south Taluk, was sought for. The sale at the spot was directed to be held on 24. 7. 90 and sale on Court on 28. 7. 90. It is alleged that on 28. 7. 90 the Presiding Officer was on leave and on 8. 8. 90 an application was filed by the auction purchaser and the case was advanced and auction purchaser was permitted to pay the balance bid amount. Objection was raised by the judgment debtor by filing i. A. 4. Ultimately, by order dated 22. 12. 90 the trial Court has dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor and allowed application for confirmation of sale. ( 3 ) THE sale was questioned by the judgment-debtor on various grounds and ultimately over-ruling the objections of the judgment- debtor the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was directed to be issued. The appellate Court confirms such an order holding that the objections raised by the judgment-debtor are untenable. ( 4 ) BEFORE this Court, order of confirmation of sale is attacked on the following grounds: (i) Under Order 21 Rules 72 (3) the sale is bad because purchase is made by auction purchaser. (ii) Mandatory provision of Rule 138 of Civil Rules of Practice have not been complied at all. (iii) The survey number of the property brought to sale does not tally with the correct survey number. (iv) There is no sale in the eye of law at ail (v) No verification statement nor valuation certificate was furnished. (vi) Though point under Rule 138 was not raised specifically before the Trial Court as well as appellate Court, he is entitled to raise it as a point of law before this Court. (iv) There is no sale in the eye of law at ail (v) No verification statement nor valuation certificate was furnished. (vi) Though point under Rule 138 was not raised specifically before the Trial Court as well as appellate Court, he is entitled to raise it as a point of law before this Court. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent has submitted that there was earlier Execution Petition No. 113/79 wherein the judgment-debtor was allowed to pay the decree amount in instalments which he failed to comply with. On 28. 7. 90 all the properties of the judgment-debtor was attached. Though five properties were attached in all fairness, only one property was brought to sale. The objection regarding survey number have been considered by the Trial Court and it was found that what was brought to sale was correct survey number. Several opportunities were given to the judgment-debtor to avoid the sale by payment and in particular opportunities are given between 17. 3. 90 till 21. 4. 90 for payment of the decree amount, and the judgment-debtor did not avail opportunities for payment. So far as procedure under Rule 138 is concerned, it is submitted that there is order directing deposit of amount. So far as objection under Order 21 ,rule 72 (3) is concerned no prejudice is not caused to the decree holder. Consequently said provision may not apply. ( 6 ) HEARD the counsels. ( 7 ) SO far as judgment-debtor is concerned, it appears that he is only interested in dragging on the proceedings and a decree in suit of the year 1979 is sought to be realised only in 1990 and even that is questioned in 1999 till now, without paying the money due. Execution itself was filed on 10. 7. 88. In the earlier execution No. 133/ 79 the defendant was given permission to pay in monthly installments of Rs. 2,500/- and that opportunity was not availed. In the later execution which is now spoken to in CRP i. e. , Ext. No. 117/88 again opportunity was given for him to make payment. In fact, time was granted to judgment-debtor on 17. 3. 90 till 21. 4. 90 directing the payment of balance in full settlement in two instalments. 2,500/- and that opportunity was not availed. In the later execution which is now spoken to in CRP i. e. , Ext. No. 117/88 again opportunity was given for him to make payment. In fact, time was granted to judgment-debtor on 17. 3. 90 till 21. 4. 90 directing the payment of balance in full settlement in two instalments. Neither the judgment-debtor has paid first instalment nor made any arrangement for the same and only then proclamation of sale and sale warrants were issued. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the judgment- debtor does not deserve any sympathy at all as his fnterest is only to drag on the proceedings and does not want to satisfy the decree of the Court. ( 8 ) SO far as Order 21 Rule 72 (3) is concerned, this is how the rule reads:"where a decree-holder purchases by himself or through another person, without such permission, the Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the judgment-debtor or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale, by order set aside the sale; and the costs of such application and order, and any deficiency of price which may happen on the resale and all expenses attending it, shall be paid by the decree-holder". The word used in Rule 72 (3) is decree-holder. Admittedly, property is not purchased by the decree-holder. It is claimed that purchase is made by wife of the power of attorney holder of the decree-holder. Certainly the wife cannot be considered as decree-holder. In any view of the matter or any sense of term, such contention is thoroughly unwarranted. It only exhibits the conduct and nature of the judgment- debtor in avoiding the payment. So far as the attack on Rule 138 of civil Rules of Practice is concerned, it is necessary to extract the same which is as follows:"sale of immovable property shall ordinarily take place at the spot, subject to the condition that the final bid shall be offered before the Presiding Officer at the Court House. "the learned Counsel also relied upon the case of KRISHNAPPA k. P. vs B. GANGAPPA BY LRS. AND OTHERS to the following passage:"for an auction sale of immovable property to be complete, the final bid must be offered before, and must be accepted, by, the presiding officer of the Court. "the learned Counsel also relied upon the case of KRISHNAPPA k. P. vs B. GANGAPPA BY LRS. AND OTHERS to the following passage:"for an auction sale of immovable property to be complete, the final bid must be offered before, and must be accepted, by, the presiding officer of the Court. If the final bid has not been offered before the Presiding Officer at the Court house, there is no sale held in accordance with Rule 138 of the Civil Rules of Practice. "the case of MANJAMMA vs SURYANARAYANA RAO on the question of Rule 138 is relied upon which is as follows:"the sale on the spot is an essential part of the sale itself. Even if the JDrs. agree to waive it, the Court is not bound by it and the Court is bound to follow the mandatory provision of Rule, 138 of the Civil Rules of Practice. The object of holding the sale on the spot is to bring it to the notice of the people in the locality that a particular property belonging to a particular JDr. is to be sold at a particular spot. The object of holding the sale at spot is to attract as many bidders as possible and to see that the property fetches the highest price. Therefore, the requirement underlines in Rules 138 of the Civil rules of practice is really laudable. Therefore, Rule 138 is a mandatory provision. The people must come to know about the intended sate just some few days before the actual conduct of the sale itself before the Court. The object of holding the sale on the spot is to apprise the people that the final bid of the sale would be held in the court on a particular date. If that is not done, grave injustice would be caused to the JDr. The property must fetch proper price. "the dictum in ANNAPPA REDDY vs SURESH3 against the question of Rule 138 is relied upon and it is contended that the sale is vitiated because of non-following up the procedure under Rule 138. ( 9 ) IT is seen from the order sheet filed along with the petition that on 28. 7. 90 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to be called on 18. 8. 90. It appears an application under I. A. 5 was filed for confirmation of sale. ( 9 ) IT is seen from the order sheet filed along with the petition that on 28. 7. 90 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to be called on 18. 8. 90. It appears an application under I. A. 5 was filed for confirmation of sale. Apart from sale, application under Section 151 CPC for advancing the bearing from 18. 8. 90 to 8. 8. 90. On that day, the following order was passed. "case advanced. Auction purchaser is permitted to deposit the balance of bid amount. " this order contemplates or pre-supposes acceptance of the offer by court. Without accepting the offer the question of calling upon the auction purchaser to deposit balance amount does not arise. Even otherwise on 16. 8. 90, the endorsement shows that the advocate for judgment-debtor files an application under Section 151 cpc and the application was filed only under Order 21 Rule 72 (3) and 90 CPC. He has not raised any objection at earliest point of time that there is no acceptance of the offer. Consequently, the question of depositing the amount by auction purchaser does not arise. In fact, not only that tie has not raised any objection at the earliest point of time, he has not raised objection at all in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 72 (3) and 90 before the executing Court. Not only that in the memorandum of grounds filed before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, this point was not raised; but it appears during the course of arguments this objection was taken that Rule 138 of Civil Rules of Practice is not followed in this case. The Rule has been extracted and it says that sale shall ordinarily take place at the spot and final bid shall be offered before the presiding officer. As pointed supra, the question of final bid arise only when there are other bidders. Once no other bidders are available and the Court is satisfied about the sale price and when it orders deposit of money offer is deemed to have been made and accepted by Court. ( 10 ) IN Krishnappa's case, referred supra, the facts are different. As pointed supra, the question of final bid arise only when there are other bidders. Once no other bidders are available and the Court is satisfied about the sale price and when it orders deposit of money offer is deemed to have been made and accepted by Court. ( 10 ) IN Krishnappa's case, referred supra, the facts are different. There, judgment-debtor as well as auction purchaser were prepared to set aside the sale and the question as to whether the endorsement made by the Judge himself amounts to offer of acceptance within the meaning of Section 138 has not been considered. Ultimately, it has to be noted that it is intended to safeguard the interest of the judgment-debtor whose immovable property is brought for sale. It is also intended to eliminate all possible, mal-practices which are likely to be adopted so as to knock down the property put up for sale by public auction at a lower price. If the final bid is offered before the presiding officer at the Court house, even those persons who could not offer their bids at the spot for some reason or the cither, will be able to offer their bids before the presiding officer of the Court at the Court house. There is solemnity attached to the proceedings before the Court and it is open for all those who are interested in purchasing the property put up for sale, to offer their bids. Thus, the conduct of final bid before the Presiding Officer at the Court house ensures not only the proper conduct of the sale in a free and solemn atmosphere, but it also enables to secure proper value to the property put up for sale. ( 11 ) THIS is what the dictum contemplates cited supra. It is not the case of the petitioner here that they were present on 27. 8. 90 to offer further bids nor on subsequent date on 18. 8. 90 so as to offer further bids. When the Court below held that except the auction- purchaser and petitioner, nobody is available in Court, this Court is bound to accept the offer already made at the spot by the auction- purchaser which is by inference referred and direct the auction- purchaser to deposit the money into Court. 8. 90 so as to offer further bids. When the Court below held that except the auction- purchaser and petitioner, nobody is available in Court, this Court is bound to accept the offer already made at the spot by the auction- purchaser which is by inference referred and direct the auction- purchaser to deposit the money into Court. If really, the sale was for lower price it is certainly open to the judgment-debtor to raise his objection or try to keep others. Unless otherwise this practical aspect is done, it is not possible to question the application of Rule 138 and contend that Rule 138 was not complied with. Even in the case, of Manjamma this principle has been reiterated and the proposition is:"the object of sale proclamation is to inform the people that sale of a particular property is to be held on a particular day in a particular place". Therefore, the principle of law is to see that the property of the judgment-debtor is sold for a proper and appropriate price. But if there is nobody except the auction-pruchaser present in Court, this court cannot do anything except accepting the offer made by him and eliminate the sale by directing him first to deposit money in court within the time prescribed. In Annappa Reddy's case, the principles are reiterated:"there is solemnity attached to the proceeding before the Court and it is open for all thbse who are interested in purchasing the property put up for sale to offer their bids. "i am of the opinion that the protection of law is given and the protection cannot be mis-used by the judgment-debtor by attacking the sale without actually appreciating the facts available on the spot. To repeat once again if on the date of sale posted for acceptance of the offer or confirmation of sale, no other bidders are available the court has no other option but to accept the offer made. Merely because the Court has not mentioned this particular fact in the ordersheet, it does not vitiate sale. After all when the auction-purchaser is directed to deposit the amount, it pre-supposes the court has found reasonableness in the offer made and accepted the offer. In my opinion as the Rule 138 has been properly complied with the judgment-debtor cannot complain about the same. After all when the auction-purchaser is directed to deposit the amount, it pre-supposes the court has found reasonableness in the offer made and accepted the offer. In my opinion as the Rule 138 has been properly complied with the judgment-debtor cannot complain about the same. ( 12 ) AS rightly pointed by the Court below before issuing proclamation of sale there are several adjournments. If really there was any discrepancy in respect of survey number it would be open for him to object the same and it is not open for him now to question, after the sale is confirmed. The question of verifying statement, though it is complained of by the judgment-debtor, I find from the records that the procedure has been duly followed and there is no violation of any other provision. In this view, holding that there is absolutely no merit, CRP is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .