M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment, according to Law, arises out of a Civil Miscellaneous appeal, filed by the sole appellant, against r-l and R-2, under Section 104, C. P. C, read with sub-rule (1) of Order XLIII thereof, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT, dated 31-12-2002, of the court of the Second Senior Civil Judge, warangal (Executing Court), made in E. A. No. 273 of 2002, in E. P. No. 76 of 1997, in o. S. No. 31 of 1984, of its file, and the decree of even date, that followed the same, therein. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned Counsel for both the parties. ( 5 ) THE sole appellant in this Civil miscellaneous Appeal, corresponds to the sole petitioner in the said E. A No. 273 of 2002, and the sole judgment debtor in the said E. P. No. 76 of 1997, both of the file of the said Executing Court, and the sole defendant in the said O. S. No. 31 of 1984, of the file of the Trial Court. R-l herein corresponds to R-l in that E. A, and D. Hr in that E. P, and the sole plaintiff in that suit. R-2 herein corresponds to R-2 in that E. A and is the auction purchaser in that E. P. proceeding, and is not a party to the suit. ( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, as such, as in that E. P. No. 76 of 1997, as the D. Hr, J. Dr and the auction purchaser, lest, so, specified. ( 7 ) THE subject-matter of the said e. A. 273 of 2002, as well as the said E. P. No. 76 of 1997, as also the present Civil miscellaneous Appeal, and the reliefs claimed in respect whereof, as described in the E. P. schedule, is set forth, in brief, as under:"only, ground floor of the house bearing municipal No. 8-1-9, admeasuring 108 square yards and situate in S. V. N. Road, Warangal, and bounded on its four sides, as described in that E. P. schedule". ( 8 ) THE sole J. Dr file the said e. A. No. 273 of 2002, in said E. P. No. 76 of 1997, in the said Executing Court, against the D. Hr, and the auction purchaser, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 60, as well as, Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. , requesting that Court to set aside the public auction held by it, in respect of the said scheduled property, on 28-8-2002, etc. ( 9 ) IN execution of the Decree obtained in the said O. S. No. 31 of 1984, the D. Hr filed the said E. P. No. 76 of 1997, for sale of the said scheduled property, claimed to be belonging to the J. Dr, for realisation of decretal amount, etc. , in pursuance whereof, ultimately, that Court sold the said scheduled property to the auction purchaser, by way of public Court auction, on 28-8-2002. ( 10 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the said J. Dr filed the said E. P. 273 of 2002, in the said executing Court, against the D. Hr, and the auction purchaser under sub-rule (2) of Rule 60 and Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. , to set aside the said sale of the scheduled property held by that Court, on 28-8-2002, and knocking down the same in favour of the present auction purchaser, etc. ( 11 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the said E. A. No. 273 of 2002, of the said executing Court, the J. Dr, inter alia, urged as under (A) The appeal preferred by him to the high Court in A. S. No. 54 of 1999, against the Decree of the Trial Court in the said O. S. No. 31 of 1984, in execution of the Decree, wherein, the said scheduled property was sold in court auction, as aforesaid, is still pending in the High Court; (B) The D. Hr showed the value of the said scheduled property at rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs only), even though, in the affidavit filed in the high Court in C. M. P. No. 1007 of 1997, the value of the property was shown as Rs. 20,00,000. 00 (Rs. Twenty lakhs only ). The D. Hr wanted to knock away the property at a meagre amount. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs only), even though, in the affidavit filed in the high Court in C. M. P. No. 1007 of 1997, the value of the property was shown as Rs. 20,00,000. 00 (Rs. Twenty lakhs only ). The D. Hr wanted to knock away the property at a meagre amount. He also obtained permission from the said Executing Court to participate in the auction; (C) As per the valuation (standard) certificate obtained by the J. Dr at the registrar Office, Warangal, the value of the said property was shown as rs. 9,99,000/- (Rs. Nine lakhs ninety nine thousand only), and, hence, he requested the Executing Court to show the value of the J. Dr of the scheduled property at Rs. 9,99,000. 00, but, however, that Court refused the request made by the J. Dr, in that regard in EA No. 26 of 2001; (D) Hence, questioning the, validity and legality thereof, the J. Dr filed C. M. P. No. 1531 of 2001, in the High Court, where the High Court on 11-4-2001, directed the said Executing Court to include the value given by the J. Dr, also in the auction proceedings, as well as to mention about the pendency of A. S. No. 54 of 1999, in the High court, preferred against the Decree under execution in that E. P; (E) Subsequently, a fresh proclamation was issued by the said Executing court, on 5-8-2002, showing the value of the J. Dr at Rs. 9,99,000. 00, and fixing it as the offset price and the date of the auction as 27-8-2002, between 10. 30 a. m. , and 5. 00 p. m. , at its premises, at Warangal. However, the valuation of the D. Hr was not shown in the sale proclamation; (F) The D. Hr got the sale proclamation made in daily Telugu Newspaper by name "vaartha" in its Warangal district edition, dated 9-8-2002, in which the D. Hr furnished the value of the said scheduled property as rs. 4,00,000/- (Rs. Four Lakhs only), as per his version and as Rs. 9,99,000. 00 as the value of the J. Dr, and rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs), as the value of the Court Bailiff. This proclamation is not in confirmity with the sale proclamation issued by the court; (G) Subsequently, however, on 27-8-2002, said auction was not held, as scheduled, in spite of huge gathering of bidders, from 10. 9,99,000. 00 as the value of the J. Dr, and rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs), as the value of the Court Bailiff. This proclamation is not in confirmity with the sale proclamation issued by the court; (G) Subsequently, however, on 27-8-2002, said auction was not held, as scheduled, in spite of huge gathering of bidders, from 10. 30 a. m. The First additional Senior Civil Judge, warangal, who was in full additional charge of the Executing Court, adjourned the case at 5. 00 p. m. , on that day, by writing on the docket sheet of the E. P. as "publication filed call on 28-8-2002" and that the sale was adjourned on payment of batta. (H) However, the said adjournment of sale, is not clear, because, the said Judge did not fix any particular date, much less, 28-8-2002, to conduct the sale. Hence, the bidders went away under the impression, that the Court will fix fresh date for sale, on 28-8-2002; (I) Hence, whatever proceedings were held by the Executing Court, including the public auction, by the said In-charge judge, on 28-8-2002, without fixing the next date for sale by way of fresh notice of sale, or proclamation, will be null and void, and will be liable to be set aside; (J) Hence, the J. Dr filed the said E. A. , for setting aside of the sale, held on 28-8-2002; ( 12 ) IN the said E. P. No. 273 of 2002, the D. Hr. , filed a counter-affidavit, inter alia, averring as under: (A) Admitted the suit proceedings and filing of the E. P for recovery of the decretal amount, etc; (B) Earlier, the J. Dr got filed through his sons and mother, another E. A. No. 232 of 1998, and E. A. No. 06 of 1998, stating that the scheduled property does not belong to him, and that, they got the same under a will, etc. , however, both EAs were dismissed; (C) Subsequently, the J. Dr filed another petition under Section 47, C. P. C. , which is also dismissed; (d) The J. Dr filed four or five revision cases in the High Court about the value of the property, and to stop the sale; (e) The J. Dr is dragging on the matter, since 1997, up to date, etc; (f) Even though the market value in the basic value register of the Registration Office is Rs. 9,00,000. 00 (Rs. Nine lakhs only), for ground floor, the premises is only in an extent of 109 square yards and in a corner of a street; (g) Earlier, once the Executing Court held auction on 10-4-2000, and a bid was given for Rs. 4,11,000. 00 (Rs. Four lakhs eleven thousand only), and odd, but, however, because the same was not deposited on the ground that it is more than the market value; (h) Hence, the said Executing Court, cancelling that earlier sale, again resold, the ground floor will not fetch Rs. 3,00,000. 00 to Rs. 40,000. 00, because it is an old one, constructed more than fifty years back, and if the ground floor is sold, and the first floor is not sold. Hence, the valuation of the scheduled property at Rs. 3,24,000. 00 (Three lakhs twenty four thousand only), is sufficient as per the prevailing market value, five or six bidders participated in the auction; (i) It is false that the D. Hr want to purchase the property. The J. Dr could have produced bidders to participate in the auction, to fetch higher price. Also, the J. Dr himself can participate in the auction, with permission; (j) The sale proclamation and process in respect of the now impugned Court auction sale, held on 28-2-2002, were made in compliance with the Orders of the High Court; (k) The said sale is not illegal and does not suffer from any material irregularities in publishing, or conducting the sale; (1) Because the sale was adjourned from 27-8-2002, immediate next date being 28-8-2002, that too, on payment of adjournment batta, dispensing with fresh proclamation, also the J. Dr simply stated at the time of sale and the same was knocked down in the open Court hall; (m) The suit is of the year 1984. The only intention of the J. Dr is to delay the matter by filing the present E. A; (n) As per the amendment, before filing a petition under Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. , the J. Dr has to deposit sale amount, or furnish security for the sale auction, otherwise, the petition will not be maintainable; and (o) For the foregoing reasons, the said E. P. No. 273 of 2002, has to be dismissed against the D. Hr, with costs to him. ( 13 ) IN the said E. A. No. 273 of 2002, the auction purchaser filed a counter, inter alia, averring therein, as under: (a) The E. A. was filed by the J. Dr. with mala fide intention to delay the litigation. There are no valid grounds to set aside the sale, which was knocked down in his favour; (b) The auction purchaser purchased the property in open public auction, legally held, by bidding for the highest price. He has also paid the entire purchase money, and waiting issuance of sale certificate in his favour together with possession of the scheduled property; and (c) Hence, the E. A. , has to be dismissed with costs, to him. ( 14 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the said Executing Court enquired into the said E. A. No. 273 of 2002, in the process whereof, no oral, or, affidavit, evidence, was adduced before it, but, however, the J. Dr got exhibited, the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. A-1 to A-3, and, later, after due arguments thereinto, the said Executing Court adjudicated thereupon, by its now impugned Orders, and the Decree, both, dated 31-12-2002, set forth in Para 2, supra, as under:- (a) Refused to set aside the impugned auction, held on 28-2-2002; (b) Consequently, dismissed the E. A. with costs. ( 15 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and hence, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the J. Dr filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, as set forth in Para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for J. Dr (Sole appellant) relied upon 1999 (6) ALD 402 = 1999 (6) ALT 151 (A. P.) (Khasim Bee v. T. G. Lakshmayya Thimmayya Setty), delivered, inter alia, interpreting Section 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. , setting aside the sale, on the ground, that, the sale was not conducted on the date fixed in respect thereof, etc. , and, also conducted without fresh proclamation of sale, that too, without rectifying the defects, etc. , etc. ( 17 ) WHILE so, the learned Counsel for the D. Hr relied upon 4 Rulings, inter alia, interpreting Rule 90 of Order XXI, C. P. C. They are set forth, hereunder: (1) AIR 1971 SC 2337 (Radhshyam v. Shyam Behari), inter alia, postulating, that, after amendment of Rule 90 or Order XXI, C. P. C. by the Allahabad High Court, in order to set aside, that the auction sale cannot be set aside, unless, it is proved, that, there is inadequacy of price, and that, the same was caused by reason of material irregularity, or fraud, and that, both the ingredients shall be proved, etc. ( 18 ) THE brief, material, required, facts and circumstances, of the case, are all set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. The J. Dr questioned the said sale, and sought to get the same set aside, as set forth in Para 8, supra, primarily, on three grounds. ( 19 ) FIRSTLY, that, the earlier directions, given by the High Court, in respect of the steps, preceding the said auction, were not complied with, by the Executing Court, and, secondly, that, the sale was held, without fresh publications, notwithstanding the same was adjourned from the date, originally notified for sale, to another date, as also kindly, failed to notify the valuations of the scheduled property, as furnished by the J. Dr. ( 20 ) AS aforesaid, the said sale was held on 28-8-2002. As can be seen, directly, from the publication made in a vernacular daily, by name, "vaartha" , exhibited as Ex. A-2, as also, the sale proclamation, exhibited, as Ex. A-1, in respect of the said sale, all the material required for wide publication of sale, were made therein. ( 21 ) A direct examination of the said publication will make in manifest, beyond any doubt, whatsoever, that an appeal is pending in the High Court, in A. S. No. 54 of 1999, against the Decree in O. S. No. 31 of 1994, in pursuance whereof, the said sale was scheduled to be held thereby, and, later, held, and questioned by the said ( 22 ) AGAIN, the said publication also, manifestly, discloses, that, it furnished the valuation of the scheduled property, as valued by the D. Hr, as at Rs. 4,00,000. 00 (Rs. 4,00,000. 00 (Rs. Four lakhs only); that of the J. Dr, as at rs. 9,99,000/- (Rs. Nine lakhs ninety nine thousand only), as well as, that of the bailiff of the Court, as, at Rs. 3,00,000. 00 (Rs. Three lakhs only), and also, furnished the date, scheduled for holding the public auction, as 28-8-2002. It also described, in detail, the scheduled property, with all the required particulars. ( 23 ) EARLIER, prior to the said impugned sale, once, the High Court, by Orders, dated 11-4-2001, made in CRP No. 1531 of 2001, directed the D. Hr, to include in the sale proclamations, the value, as estimated by the J. Dr, and also, about the factum of pendency of the said A. S. No. 54 of 1999, in the High Court. ( 24 ) AGAIN, on the same day, in CRP no. 1274 of 2001, the High Court directed the Executing Court, to issue fresh proclamations. These facts will be manifest from the Orders, dated 27-2-2002, of the high Court, made in CRP No. 3378 of 2001, available in the Record. ( 25 ) A perusal of the said Orders in the said CRP No. 3378 of 2001, will make it manifest, that, complaining that, the earlier directions of the High Court, in the two other CRPs, referred to, in the two immediately preceding paragraphs were not complied with, again, the J. Dr, filed the said revision petition where upon the high Court, while finding, that, the earlier proclamations, etc. , were bad, etc. , and setting aside the same, directed the Executing court, to issue fresh proclamations, complying with the earlier directions of the high Court, referred to in Paras 23 and 24, supra, also, directed the concerned presiding Officer, to bestow personal attention, etc. ( 26 ) IT is, after the latest direction of the high Court in that said CRP No. 3378 of 2001, the said Executing Court, ordered and get made, fresh proclamation and publication in the said "vaartha", referred to in Para 20, supra, purporting to be in strict compliance with the directions given by the High Court. ( 26 ) IT is, after the latest direction of the high Court in that said CRP No. 3378 of 2001, the said Executing Court, ordered and get made, fresh proclamation and publication in the said "vaartha", referred to in Para 20, supra, purporting to be in strict compliance with the directions given by the High Court. ( 27 ) AN examination of Paras 18 to 26, supra, in my opinion, will, make it manifest, and speak for themselves that, thereby, the said Executing Court, as also, the D. Hr, fully and strictly, complied with the earlier directions of the High Court, given in the crps, referred to in Paras 23 to 25, supra, and that, hence, cannot be complained against the Executing Court, or D. Hr, as not complied with, even remotely. ( 28 ) HENCE, the objections, as to non-compliance with the earlier directions of the high Court, are absolutely unsustainable at fact and Law, and hence are hereby overruled, as such in toto. ( 29 ) THE second ground is, that, the sale was originally scheduled to be held on 27-8-2002, before the said Executing Court, but that, however, because, the concerned presiding Officer, was on leave, on that day, the sale was held by the Presiding officer, who was in-charge of that Executing court. ( 30 ) BECAUSE, on 27-8-2002, the said in-charge Court, was having heavy work, due to its attending to works of that parent Court, as well as, in-charge Court, for want of time , that Court, adjourned the sale to the immediate next day, being, on 28-8-2002. This will be manifest from the impugned Orders, as well as, the docket sheet of the execution proceedings in EP no. 76 of 1997, of the file of that Court. ( 31 ) FOR one day, i. e. , the immediate next day adjournment, no fresh proclamations, or tom-tom, are required, ordinarily, if the sale is adjourned for more than one month, then, all these will be required. Here the sale was adjourned, only, to the immediate next succeeding day, being 28-8-2002. ( 32 ) THE J. Dr cannot complain, as that, there are no fresh proclamation, or, publication, and the like, much less, that for that reason, the sale was vitiated, due to material irregularity, or illegality. Here the sale was adjourned, only, to the immediate next succeeding day, being 28-8-2002. ( 32 ) THE J. Dr cannot complain, as that, there are no fresh proclamation, or, publication, and the like, much less, that for that reason, the sale was vitiated, due to material irregularity, or illegality. ( 33 ) IN fact, the docket order of the said court, on 27-8-2002, reveals, that, that Court adjourned the said sale, at 5. 00 p. m. , on 27- 8-2002, recording on its docket sheet, as "publication filed, called on 28-8-2002", and that, the sale was adjourned on payment of batta. ( 34 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 28-8-2002, as scheduled, the sale was held. This, in my opinion, is perfectly valid and legal and according to law, and there is, nothing to be complained against. ( 35 ) THE version of the J. Dr, that, he was under the impression that, the Court will fix a fresh date for sale, on 28-8-2002, is mala fide, unbelievable and artificial. When the Court adjourned, in positive language, the sale to next day, and recorded the same, in black and white, it cannot be said, that, the J. Dr understood otherwise, except, for mala fide reasons, and, especially, when he is very much present in the court, and, obviously, has an Advocate engaged by him in that matter. So, these objections are also hereby overruled, in toto, as such. ( 36 ) THE impugned sale was knocked down in favour of the auction purchaser, for rs. 3,24,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs twenty four thousand only ). It cannot be complained as inadequate price, to be construed, under Law, as material irregularity. ( 37 ) ). The value furnished by the bailiff is Rs. 3,00,000. 00 ( Rs. Three lakhs only ). The value furnished by the J. Dr is Rs. 9,99,999. 00 (Rs. Nine lakhs, ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine only), which is obviously an exaggerated figure. The value of the J. Dr is Rs. 4,00,000. 00 ( Rs. Four lakhs only) ( 38 ) THE Executing Court recorded, that, the said building is about a half a century old and is located at S. V. N. Road, Warangal. Nine lakhs, ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine only), which is obviously an exaggerated figure. The value of the J. Dr is Rs. 4,00,000. 00 ( Rs. Four lakhs only) ( 38 ) THE Executing Court recorded, that, the said building is about a half a century old and is located at S. V. N. Road, Warangal. ( 39 ) AFTER perusing the impugned orders, vis-a-vis, the grounds of appeal, questioning the same, vis-a-vis, the factual and legal, position, prevailing, on the subject, and postulated in the foregoing rulings vis-a-vis, the arguments of the learned Counsel for all the parties, I am of the opinion, that, the impugned Orders do not suffer from any, factual, or, legal, infirmity, or illegality, or, perversity, or abnormality, so as to warrant the High Court, to interfere therewith, on any such question of fact, or Law, on in mis-appreciation of the material placed, on Record, or in misinterpretation of any statutory provision, or, in mis-appreciation of the case law, and the like. ( 40 ) I am fully satisfied with the reasonings and observations, and the findings recorded by the said Executing Court, in the impugned Orders, as also, the final adjudications made thereby, and hence, confirm the same, as also, the Decree that followed the same, in toto. ( 41 ) HENCE, the same is devoid of all, factual and legal, merits, and, hence, is liable to be dismissed, in toto, as is being done, hereunder. ( 42 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Civil Miscellaneous appeal, dismissing the same, in toto, with costs, both to R-l and R-2 (D. Hr and the auction purchaser.)