( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtors in E. P. No. 28 of 2001 in o. S. No. 27 of 1997 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. ( 2 ) THE respondent is the plaintiff decree holder. He filed O. S. No. 27 of 1997 for recovery of mortgage money of Rs. 60,775/- against the Judgment Debtors in respect of the suit schedule property and a preliminary decree was passed on 30-04-1999. The Decree Holder filed I. A. No. 25 of 2000 for passing the final decree and the final decree was passed on 30-07-2000. The Decree Holder filed E. P. No. 28 of 2001 under Order 21 Rules 64 and 66 of C. P. C. against the judgment Debtors basing on the final decree for realization of Rs. 73,626/- by sale of E. P. schedule property, which is a dwelling house. The test of E. P. schedule property was ordered on 06-08-2001 issuing simultaneous notice to the judgment Debtors. The Court Amin executed the test warrant on 02-10-2001 and submitted a report on 03-10-2001 mentioning that the village elders valued the property at Rs. 30,000/ -. The notice on Judgment Debtor No. 1 was served and he was called absent and set ex parte. Judgment Debtor Nos. 2 and 3 were not served and their notice was ordered by way of publication and on filing of the publication, they were called absent and they were also set ex parte. Subsequently, the Decree Holder filed the sale papers and they were found to be correct. On 25-07-20002, sale notice was issued to the Judgment Debtors under order 21 Rule 66 of C. P. C. ( 3 ) THE Judgment Debtors engaged an Advocate and filed a common counter pleading that the E. P. schedule property was assigned by the Government and the alienation of the same is prohibited under law, therefore, they have salable interest in the property. ( 4 ) THE evidence on both sides was recorded. The Judgment Debtors contended that the E. P. schedule property was assigned by the Government, therefore, the said property cannot be sold. ( 4 ) THE evidence on both sides was recorded. The Judgment Debtors contended that the E. P. schedule property was assigned by the Government, therefore, the said property cannot be sold. RW-2 Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Gorantla mandal, deposed that as per condition No. 9 of the Patta granted in favour of judgment Debtor No. 1 i. e. , the beneficiary is not entitled to sell the house for ten years without permission of the Government. The patta was granted in the year 1976, therefore, the Execution Court accepted the contention of the Decree holder that Judgment Debtor No. 1 became the absolute owner of the E. P. schedule property and accordingly, passed an order holding that the Judgment Debtors are having salable interest in the property. The E. P. was posted to 12-04-2004 for settlement of terms and sale was fixed on 21-06-2004. The Court conducted the auction on 21-06-2004 after following the procedure and the E. P. schedule property was sold for Rs. 32,900/- in favour of one K. Gangulappa S/o Pedda rangappa of Gorantla, who was the highest bidder among three participants. The e. P. Court proceedings disclose that the Judgment Debtors have neither furnished the value of the E. P. schedule property nor raised any objection for the value given by the Decree Holder or the value fixed by the Bailiff at Rs. 30,000/ -. As the price offered by the auction purchaser is more than the price fixed by the Amin, the bid was knocked down in favour of the highest bidder after satisfying that the property was auctioned for a reasonable price. The test report submitted by the Amin discloses that the E. P. property was identified within the boundaries on ground and there is no ambiguity or confusion with regard to the E. P. schedule property. The auction purchaser deposited 1/4 of the sale price on the date of auction i. e. , 21-06-2004 and he paid the remaining amount on 02-07-2004, therefore, the sale was confirmed on 06-07-2004 and the sale certificate was delivered on 06-08-2004. ( 5 ) THE Judgment Debtors filed E. A (sr ). No. 51495 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the E. P. on the ground that the Decree Holder filed the Application by enclosing an affidavit instead of filing a verified petition. The auction purchaser was not added as a party to the petition. ( 5 ) THE Judgment Debtors filed E. A (sr ). No. 51495 of 2004 with a prayer to dismiss the E. P. on the ground that the Decree Holder filed the Application by enclosing an affidavit instead of filing a verified petition. The auction purchaser was not added as a party to the petition. Though the petition was filed on 05-07-2004, it was returned on 23-07-2004 with an objection as to how the petition is maintainable. At the request of the Judgment Debtors, the petition was called on Bench on 18-08-2004 to hear their objections. After hearing the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtors, the petition was dismissed as infructuous as the sale certificate was delivered and the E. P. was closed. Being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, dated 18-08-2004, this Revision petition has been preferred. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners contended that: 1) The E. P. schedule property cannot be sold as the Judgment Debtors have no right of alienation since it was the land assigned by the Government in favour of Judgment Debtor No. 1; 2) When the sale was conducted on 21-06-2004, the E. P. Court ought to have waited till 21-08-2004 for confirmation of the sale, but the Court hastily confirmed the sale on 06-07-2004 i. e. , about 16 days after the sale; and 3) The E. P. Court committed procedural irregularities at every stage of E. P. proceedings, therefore, the sale is liable to be set aside by dismissing the e. P. ( 7 ) I have perused the order of the lower Court and various steps taken in the E. P. proceedings and the house site patta issued in favour of the first petitioner in respect of the E. P. schedule property. There is no dispute that it is the land allotted by the Government for construction of a house. There was a prohibition clause under condition No. 9 that the property shall not be alienated or otherwise disposed of to any person within a period of ten years. If so, the Government would take back the property without giving any compensation for the constructions or improvements made on it. RW-2, the Deputy mandal Revenue Officer, also conceded that after completion of ten years, the assignee gets salable interest over the property. If so, the Government would take back the property without giving any compensation for the constructions or improvements made on it. RW-2, the Deputy mandal Revenue Officer, also conceded that after completion of ten years, the assignee gets salable interest over the property. The patta was grated in the year 1976, therefore, by 1986 the ten years period was over and Judgment Debtor no. 1 became the absolute owner of the property, therefore, the lower Court rightly observed that Judgment Debtor No. 1 has salable interest in the property as on the date of auction of the property. The earlier order passed by the lower Court on 05-04-2004 rejecting the contention of the Judgment Debtors was challenged by them before the High Court of A. P. in C. R. P. No. 3511 of 2004 and the High Court passed an order on 09-08-2004, which reads as follows: "sri P. Narahari Babu, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the Civil Revision Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. Recording the submission of the learned counsel, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. " ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the finding of the e. P. Court, which was not agitated by the Judgment Debtors, therefore, it became final. The Judgment Debtors are estopped from raising the same plea by way of filing the E. A before the E. P Court to dismiss the E. P. on the ground that the judgment Debtors have no salable interest in the property and the earlier order operates as res judicata. ( 9 ) AFTER going through the entire material, I am convinced that the E. P. Court rightly passed the order holding that as more than ten years have lapsed after the granting of the patta, the Judgment Debtors have acquired salable interest in the property, therefore, the property can be brought to sale. ( 10 ) THE petitioners contended that the execution Court instead of waiting for 60 days as required under Order 21 Rules 89, 90 or 91 confirmed the sale within 60 days from the date of auction, therefore, the confirmation of the sale is illegal. ( 10 ) THE petitioners contended that the execution Court instead of waiting for 60 days as required under Order 21 Rules 89, 90 or 91 confirmed the sale within 60 days from the date of auction, therefore, the confirmation of the sale is illegal. In support of the contention, they relied on a Judgment of this Court in GOSU VENKATA SESHA REDDY v. VALLURU KRISHNAIAH NAIDU, 2005 4 ALT 238 , wherein a learned single Judge of this Court held that the Execution Court cannot choose to proceed under Order 21 Rules 89, 90 and 91 to confirm the sale before expiry of 60 days period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that no application was filed under Rules 89, 90 or 91 of Order 21 of C. P. C. immediately after sale, as such application can be filed at any time before the expiry of the limitation period of 60 days. Order 21 Rule 92 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: "sale when to become absolute or be set aside. 1) Where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree, pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, or in cases where the amount deposited under rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale; provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. (3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. (3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. (4) Where a third party challenges the judgment-debtor's title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser, the decree holder and the judgment-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit. (5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4) is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree holder to refund the money to the auction-purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered. " Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads thus: description of application Period of Time from which limitation Period begins to run 127. To set aside a sale in execution Sixty days The date of the sale of a decree, including any such application by a judgment-debtor. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the sale was held on 21-06-2004 and it was confirmed on 06-07-2004. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 92 discloses that the sale become absolute and can be confirmed on fulfilling two conditions, namely 1) No application is filed under Rules 89, 90 or 91 or 2) The Application filed under the above provisions has been disallowed. For making an Application to set aside the sale as contemplated under Rules 89, 90 or 91, limitation of 60 days was prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act from the date of the sale. The provision indicate that the Act conferred a right upon any person to file an application even on the last date of limitation. The Execution Court is not supposed to take further steps for confirmation of the sale till the expiry of the period of 60 days or till the Application filed under Rules 89, 90 or 91 is disposed of. Rule 92 is also supplementary to Article 127 of the Limitation Act. ( 12 ) FROM the reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the Execution court is required to wait either till the last date of limitation for filing applications to set aside the sale or if applications are filed, till the disposal of those Applications. Rule 92 is also supplementary to Article 127 of the Limitation Act. ( 12 ) FROM the reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the Execution court is required to wait either till the last date of limitation for filing applications to set aside the sale or if applications are filed, till the disposal of those Applications. But the lower Court, out of its anxiety, failed to notice Rule 92 regarding the limitation for confirmation of the sale and passed the confirmation order on 06-07-2004, which is only 16 days from the date of the sale. ( 13 ) FROM the above facts and circumstances, I concur with the view expressed by my learned brother l. Narasimhareddy, J in the decision referred above and I am inclined to hold that the order of confirmation of sale passed by the lower Court on 06-07-2004 is liable to be set aside and the sale certificate delivered to the auction purchaser on 06-08-2004 is liable to be cancelled. ( 14 ) THOUGH the petitioners contended that the E. P. Court committed procedural irregularities, they have not pointed out the irregularities specifically except one irregularity of confirming the sale before completion of 60 days from the date of auction. In the light of the finding given under point No. 2, there is no necessity to give further finding under this point. ( 15 ) IN the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the lower Court, dated 18-08-2004, is set aside. The lower Court is directed to restore the E. P. and E. A. (sr) No. 51495 of 2004 to its original file and pass appropriate fresh orders in the E. A regarding the maintainability of the Application by giving reasons and if the Court is of the opinion that the application is maintainable to pass orders on merits. The sale conducted by the lower Court on 21-06-2004 is not disturbed. However, the lower Court is at liberty to pass fresh orders of confirmation of sale after the disposal of e. A. (sr)No. 51495 of 2004. No costs.