Judgment : A. Gopal Reddy, J. C.M.A.No.1448 of 2008 by the auction purchaser and C.M.A.No.200 of 2008 & C.R.P.No.5004 of 2008 by the decree holder, which are directed against the common order dated 06-02-2008 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in E.A.Nos.23 & 24 of 2007 in E.P.No.50 of 2002, are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the course of our judgment, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Court below, for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts in nutshell giving rise to filing the present appeals and revision are as under: M/s. Maharastra Apex Corporation Limited (hereinafter called decree-holder) filed E.P.No.50 of 2002 against Irrigation Engineering Company (India) Limited, Ranigunj, Secunderabad represented by its Joint Manager, Praveen Dawar; Rajkumar Tandon and Smt. I. Shanthamma. All the three were shown as co-obligators for execution of award passed by Sri A.S.N.Habaar, advocate, Arbitrator in A.P.No.201 of 2000 dated 11-08-2001 wherein the arbitrator passed ex-parte award for recovery of sum of Rs.19,14,461/- as claimed by Maharastra Apex Corporation Limited with future interest on Rs.12,98,000/- at 26% per annum from 16-04-2000 till payment and Rs.6,990/- being the costs of the proceedings against them personally, jointly and severally and the 4th defendant-co-obligant shall also pay the same by sale of her A-schedule immovable property, which is mortgaged as security for the loan, i.e. agricultural land measuring Ac.5.07 gts. in Sy.No.327 situated at Kallakal Village, Medchal taluk, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. In the E.P. filed under Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the decree-holder total extent of land Ac.18.03 gts.; in Sy.No.326/E measuring Ac.5.20 gts.; in Sy.No.327/A measuring Ac.5.07 gts. and in Sy.No.328/A measuring Ac.7.16 gts., was sought to be sold but in the relief column they prayed for attachment of immovable property, as mentioned in schedule of JDR No.4 i.e. Smt. I. Shantamma, and sale of properties for due realization of the amount, in which sale notice was issued in ‘Vaartha’ Telugu daily newspaper dated 24-04-2006 for proclamation of sale on 14-06-2006, on the said date auction was held for the entire land measuring Ac.18.03 gts. for a sum of Rs.1,45,50,000/-; that the auction purchaser has not paid 1/4th of the bid amount on the date of auction nor deposited the balance amount within the stipulated period of 15 days as required under Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC. Consequent to the default by the auction purchaser the executing Court by order dated 03-11-2006 ordered re-sale of an extent of Ac.5.07 gts. covered by mortgage treating the auction held on 14-06-2006 as nullity and fresh publication was given in ‘Eenadu Telugu daily on 07-11-2006 in respect of Ac.5.07 gts. in Sy.No.326/A specifying the date of auction as 27-11-2006 and posted the E.As. on 05-12-2006 for report of Bailiff. Meanwhile, J. Malla Reddy-appellant in C.M.A.No.1448 of 2008 filed E.A.No.78 of 2006 seeking stay of proclamation dated 07-11-2006 contending that he had a preferential right to purchase Ac.5.07 gts. on prorata basis in view of earlier auction and sought permission to pay 1/4th of the bid amount. The executing Court while staying the sale permitted the auction purchaser to deposit 1/4'h of the bid amount in respect of Ac.5.07 gts. of land. On obtaining stay the auction purchaser deposited Rs.11,10,000/- on 24-11-2006 requesting the executing Court to issue sale certificate in respect of Ac.5.07 gts. On 05-12-2006 the executing Court called for the report of the Bailiff within whose jurisdiction the property is situated with regard to details of bid amount of the respective survey numbers, which were auctioned, on 14-06-2006. On receipt of above report, the learned executing Court directed the auction purchaser for filing of statement and deposit of balance amount and posted the matter to 21-02-2007. On the said date the decree holder filed a memo requesting the executing Court to fix the proportionate value of Ac.5.07 gts. at Rs.41,65,678/- and confirm the sale to an extent of Ac.5.07 gts. out of Ac.18.03 gts. auctioned on 14-06-2006. On filing such memo by the decree-holder the executing Court directed the auction purchaser to deposit balance amount of Rs.30,55,678/-by 21-02-2007. On 21-02-2007 the auction purchaser filed a memo seeking extension of time for deposit of 3/4th of the bid amount as directed to be deposited and the matter was posted to 15-03-2007, on the said date the auction purchaser deposited the balance 3/4th amount of Rs.30,55,678/-. On such deposit the matter was posted to 03-04-2007. On 21-02-2007 the auction purchaser filed a memo seeking extension of time for deposit of 3/4th of the bid amount as directed to be deposited and the matter was posted to 15-03-2007, on the said date the auction purchaser deposited the balance 3/4th amount of Rs.30,55,678/-. On such deposit the matter was posted to 03-04-2007. Meanwhile, at the request of the auction purchaser, the E.P. was advanced from 03-04-2007 to 29-03-2007 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser in respect of Ac.5.07 gts. by issuing a sale certificate. On confirming the sale, JDR No.4 filed E.A.No.23 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of fraud and cancel the sale certificate issued in favour of auction purchaser and E.A.No.24 of 2007 was filed under Order XXI Rule 95 r/w 151 CPC not to release the sale certificate and not to pass orders for delivery of possession of land pending E.A.No.23 of 2007. 4. The learned executing Court by an elaborate common order allowed both the E.As. with exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by the decree holder to the 4th defendant and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the auction purchaser to the Government and subsequent payment made by him, which was invested in CCD, shall be refunded to him by directing fresh proceedings for sale of immovable property of land measuring Ac.5.07 gts. covered by A-schedule of the award and further directed to transmit the copy of the order to the Registrar (Vigilance) for appropriate action indicated therein. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order, the auction purchaser filed C.M.A.No.1448 of 2008 against E.A.No.23 of 2007, whereas the decree-holder filed C.M.A.No.200 of 2008 and C.R.P.No.5004 of 2008 against the common order passed in E.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2007 respectively. 6. Sri K.V. Subramanya Narsu, learned counsel for the decree holder contended that decree holder advanced a sum of Rs.12 lakhs to the Irrigation Engineering Company, who is the principal debtor, and respondents 1, 3 and 4 herein are co-obligants and guarantors of Ac.5.07 gts. Kallakal village. As per the arbitration clause the matter was referred to sole arbitrator at the instance of decree holder and none of the defendants contested nor appeared. Kallakal village. As per the arbitration clause the matter was referred to sole arbitrator at the instance of decree holder and none of the defendants contested nor appeared. In the E.P. respondent No.1, who is respondent No.4, served with notice and engaged an advocate and filed a counter stating that E.P. amount already paid by the Principal Debtor. The said contention has been negatived by the executing Court and attachment was ordered. Once the property is attached, the son of the mortgagor filed claim petition, E.A.No.8 of 2003 and another person who purchased the property under agreement of sale from the mortgagor filed claim petition, E.A.No.9 of 2003, both the claim petitions were dismissed for default ordering issuance of sale notice which was published in ‘Vartha’. The learned counsel fairly conceded that if a part of the property attached is sufficient, there need not be sale of whole property attached and concedes only Ac.5.07 gts., which was the subject matter of arbitration award mortgaged with the decree-holder. Since the entire sale has been confirmed by issuance of sale certificate, which has become final, the same cannot be reopened. 7. Sri G. Rama Sharma, learned counsel for the auction purchaser would contend that once sale certificate was issued on 29-03-2007, by the time of filing application by the JDR no proceedings are pending before the executing court and sale has become absolute. Once the sale has become absolute, the remedy of the JDR, if any, is only to file an appeal or revision. Therefore, the application as such filed by the JDR questioning the issuance of sale certificate is not maintainable. Further, E.A.No.23 of 2007 filed with a delay of more than 240 days. As the auction purchaser/appellant deposited the entire sale price in proportionate to Ac.5.07 gts., the JDR who is aware of the proceedings cannot question the sale. For the said proposition he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain (D) By LRS. 2008 (5) SCJ 958. He further contended that unless the irregularity in sale results substantial injury sale cannot be set aside. 8. Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for judgment debtor No.4 contended that the award passed by the arbitrator is only for Ac.5.07 gts. which is subject matter of mortgage. 2008 (5) SCJ 958. He further contended that unless the irregularity in sale results substantial injury sale cannot be set aside. 8. Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for judgment debtor No.4 contended that the award passed by the arbitrator is only for Ac.5.07 gts. which is subject matter of mortgage. Once the 1/4th of the bid amount is not deposited by the auction purchaser, admittedly, the Court cannot extend the time for deposit of the amount. Once fresh publication was made on 07-11-2006 intimating that auction will be held on 27-11-2006, the method adopted by the executing Court staying the sale and permitting the auction purchaser to deposit 1/4th of the amount is without jurisdiction. On failure to deposit 1/4th of the amount entire sale becomes nullity. The auction purchaser is hand-in-glove with the decree-holder, which is evident from the record. In support of his contention reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1. Manilal Mohanlal Shah v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad AIR 1954 SC 349 = (1955) 1 SCR 108 2. Balram v. IIam Singh AIR 1996 SC 2781 = (1996) 5 SCC 705 3. M/s. Ganry's and Ganry's Colour Studio and Laboratory (P) Ltd. v. M/s. J. Sikile (India) Ltd. 2002 (5) ALT 587 (D.B.) 4. S. Mariyappa v. Siddappa (2005) 10 SCC 235 9. In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration in these appeals and revision is: "On issuance of sale certificate by the executing Court whether it can entertain application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale and cancel the sale certificate" 10. As already stated, the main contention of Sri G. Rama Sharma, learned counsel for the auction purchaser is that on deposit of entire sale consideration the sale certificate has already been issued on 29-03-2007 making the sale absolute and no proceedings are pending before the executing Court for entertaining the application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. 11. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the questions to be determined by the Court executing decree which reads thus: 47. 11. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the questions to be determined by the Court executing decree which reads thus: 47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree—(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. (2) Omitted. (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. Explanation I-For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. Explanation 11—(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section. 12. The effect of insertion of Explanations I and II as above is to meet the injustice: where a decree is nullity or is un-executable even if such a question is raised and decided or is deemed to have been decided on account of judgment being silent cannot exclude the executing Court to go into the questions about the un-executability of the decree or it having become nullity. The said question would cover "execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree" used in Section 47. 13. The Explanations I and II, now make it clear to set at rest the conflict of decisions on the point whether a claim for possession by purchaser in court auction in pursuance of execution of a decree is or is not a question relating to execution of the decree. In view of Explanation particularly, Explanation II (b) makes it clear that the executing Court can go into all the questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and such a question is a question falling under Section 47. 14. In view of Explanation particularly, Explanation II (b) makes it clear that the executing Court can go into all the questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and such a question is a question falling under Section 47. 14. Insertion of above provision is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by way of separate suit questioning the irregularity in the sale, issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession pursuant to sale certificate can be decided by the executing Court. Therefore, we do not see any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the auction purchaser that once the sale certificate has been issued the executing Court will not have any jurisdiction to entertain application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. 15. The next question that falls for our consideration is: "Whether any irregularity or fraud is committed by the executing Court in confirming the sale and issuance of sale certificate". 16. The facts as depicted have not been denied by the learned counsel for the auction purchaser nor the counsel for the decree holder. It is not in dispute that decree sought to be executed is the award passed by the arbitrator where the description of the mortgaged property in A-schedule is shown as Ac.5.07 gts. agricultural land in Sy.No.327, Kallakal village, Medchal taluk, Toopran Mandal, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. In fact, Kallakal village falls in Gajwel taluk but not in Medchal taluk as pleaded. But in the E.P. the property sought to be sold is mentioned as As.18.03 gts., as mentioned above, for which sale proclamation was ordered and published in ‘Vartha’ fixing the auction to be held on 14-06-2006. The report submitted by the Field Assistant, Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gajwel dated 23-12-2006 also discloses that pursuant to the warrant issued by the executing Court he along with the decree-holder went to the Kallakal village, from there to the lands shown in the warrant, where the judgment debtor along with several people were present at the place of auction. When he informed that he will auction each bit independently, the people present there were not agreed for the said proposal and stated that if entire property i.e. Ac.18.03 gts. When he informed that he will auction each bit independently, the people present there were not agreed for the said proposal and stated that if entire property i.e. Ac.18.03 gts. is auctioned, they will participate; when he called the decree holder and enquired with him he also informed that entire property should be auctioned at a time; as per the advise of decree holder he auctioned all the survey numbers at a time. It is also not in dispute that E.P. is filed for execution of the award for Rs.19,14,461/- and also future interest from 16-04-2000 to 16-07-2002 and costs of E.P. which comes to Rs.27,08,380/-. 17. Learned counsel for the decree-holder has fairly conceded that order XXI Rule 64 CPC which contemplates sale of such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same. The property as determined by the executing Court also discloses Ac.5.07 gts. of land, which is the subject matter of arbitration at Rs.41,65,678/- which will satisfy the entire decretal amount. In that view of the matter, sale of Ac.18.03 gts. of land including Ac.5.07 gts. which are not the subject matter of award by the executing Court is a material irregularity in conducting the sale. 18. For better understanding we re-produce Rules 84, 85, and 86 of Order XXI CPC as under: "84. Deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default.—(1) On every sale of immovable property the person declared to be the purchaser shall pay immediately after such declaration a deposit of twenty-five per cent on the amount of his purchase-money to the officer or other person conducting the sale, and in default of such deposit, the property shall forthwith be re-sold. (2) Where the decree-holder is the purchaser and is entitled to set-off the purchase-money under Rule 72, the Court may dispense with the requirements of this rule. 85. Time for payment in full of purchase-money.—The full amount of purchase-money payable shall be paid by the purchaser into Court before the Court closes on the fifteenth day from the sale of the property: Provided, that, in calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72. 86. 86. Procedure in default of payment.—In default of payment within the period mentioned in the last preceding rule, the deposit may, if the Court thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale, be forfeited to the Government, and the property shall be re-sold, and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claim to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may subsequently be sold. 19. The Supreme Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah's case (supra) after interpreting Order XXI Rules 84 and 85 CPC held as under: "Having examined the language of the relevant rules and the judicial decisions bearing upon the subject we are of opinion that the provisions of the rules requiring the deposit of 25 per cent. of the purchase money immediately on the person being declared as a purchaser and the payment of the balance within 15 days of the sale are mandatory and upon non-compliance with these provisions there is no sale at all. The rules do not contemplate that there can be any sale in favour of a purchaser without depositing 25 per cent of the purchase money in the first instance and the balance within 15 days. When there is no-sale within the contemplation of these rules, there can be no question of material irregularly in the conduct of the sale. Non-payment of the price of the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. The very fact that the Court is bound to re-sell the property in the event of a default shows that the previous proceedings for sale are completely wiped out as if they do not exist in the eye of law". 20. Following the same the Supreme Court in Balaram's case (supra) in para-8 of its judgment held as under: "It is to be noted that the argument that it is only a material irregularity in the sale to attract Rule 90 instead of Rule 85 was expressly rejected; and it was clearly held that Rule 85 being mandatory, its non-compliance renders the sale proceedings a complete nullity requiring the executing Court to proceed under Rule 86 and property has to be resold unless the judgment-debtor satisfies the decree by making the payment before the resale. The argument that the executing Court has inherent power to extend time on the ground of its own mistake was also expressly rejected". 21. The argument that the executing Court has inherent power to extend time on the ground of its own mistake was also expressly rejected". 21. This Court in M/s. Ganry's and Ganry's Colour Studio and Laboratory(P) Ltd. (supra) following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manilal Mohanlal Shah's (1 supra) set aside the sale by allowing the application filed by the JDR. 22. The Supreme Court in Mariyappa's case (supra) held as under: "Under Section 47 all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree should be determined by the executing Court alone. The pre-sale illegalities committed in the execution are amenable to the remedy under Section 47. Post-sale illegalities or irregularities causing substantial injury to the judgment-debtor are covered under Order 21 Rule 90. Sub-rule (1) thereof covers the field of material irregularities or fraud in publicity or conducting the sale. Sub-rule (2) enjoins proof thereof and the Court should find that by reason thereof the applicant sustained substantial injury. The total absence of drawing up of the proclamation of sale and settlement of its term by judicial application of mind renders the sale a nullity being void. It is covered by Section 47. The non-application of mind whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree debt is a material irregularity doing substantial injury to the appellant attracting Order 21 Rule 90. In either case the sale is liable to be set aside. It is true that there is distinction between mere irregularity and material irregularities and the sale is not liable to be set aside on proof of mere irregularity. It must be material irregularity and the Court must be satisfied that on account thereof substantial injury was sustained by the appellant". 23. From the above judgments, law is clear and it leaves no explanation that 25% of the purchase money has to be deposited on the same day. The reason behind the deposit is if the bid accepted by the officer conducting the sale is not accompanied 25% of the purchase amount, it cannot be placed before the Court for formal acceptance and declaration of the highest bidder. Failure to deposit the amount immediately as required by Rule 84 renders the sale proceedings complete nullity of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate has no effect. 24. Failure to deposit the amount immediately as required by Rule 84 renders the sale proceedings complete nullity of confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate has no effect. 24. Coming to the case on hand, admittedly the auction purchaser—appellant in C.M.A.No.1448 of 2008 has not deposited 1/4th of the purchase amount nor deposited the balance amount within 15 days as required under Rules 84 and 85 of Order XXI. Consequent to the said default the executing Court ordered for resale to an extent of Ac.5.07 gts. of land which is under mortgage treating the auction dated 14-06-2006 as nullity. E.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2003 are filed for deleting other two survey numbers of the claim petition by leaving only Sy.No.327/A which were dismissed. E.A.No.14 of 2006 filed by Mr. C. Venkat Reddy was allowed by the executing Court with a condition to deposit 1/4'h of the bid amount on or before 25-08-2006 and meanwhile, the highest bidder filed a memo requesting the executing Court to grant time for deposit of 25% of the bid amount and the remaining amount by 30-08-2006 and the same was adjourned till further orders are passed in E.A.Nos.14 and 15 of 2006 for deposit of auction amount. Against the conditional order Mr.C.Venkat Reddy filed C.R.P.No.3434 of 2006 which was dismissed on 28-07-2006 and the SLP (Civil) No.22471 of 2006 filed by him before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 03-11-2006. Meanwhile, the executing Court stayed the auction proposed to be held on 27-11-2006 permitting the auction purchaser to deposit 1/4th of the amount. On the next day the auction purchaser deposited 1/4th of the bid amount of Rs.11,00,000/- and later the executing Court called for a report from the Bailiff of Junior Civil Judge Court, Gajwel on the details of bid amount in respect of E.P. schedule property, and on receipt of report fixed the proportionate cost for Ac.5.07 gts. at Rs.41,65,676/- and directed the auction purchaser to deposit balance amount of Rs.30,55,676/- by 21-02-2007; on that date the auction purchaser has not deposited the balance amount and sought extension of time, which was adjourned to 15-03-2007 and the balance amount was deposited on the said date with a request to fix the boundaries of the land covered by Ac.5.07 gts. which was adjourned to 03-04-2007 and at the instance of auction purchaser it was advanced to 29-03-2007 and on that date the sale was confirmed by issuing sale certificate which definitely causes substantial injury to the judgment debtor. Coming to know of the sale, JDR filed E.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2007 contending that before settlement of terms of sale she was not served with notice as required under Rule 54(1). In the counter it was alleged that judgment debtor engaged an advocate who filed counter on 15-11-2002 stating that E.P. amount was already paid by judgment debtor No.1 to decree-holder and after hearing the advocate attachment of E.P. schedule property was ordered. 25. The lower Court in para-22 of its order accepted the plea of judgment debtor No.4 that judgment debtor was completely in dark and accordingly set aside the auction. 26. There cannot be express substantial injury as envisaged under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and the same may appear to be implicit of facts and circumstances alleged. It depends upon several relevant facts whether the judgment debtor suffered substantial injury at the judicial side but the fact remains that the sale was conducted for entire 18 acres at one lot and not sold by bit wise. It is well settled that if larger extents of land is put to auction as one lot, there will be less number of persons to participate and the same has been made into bits and put to auction, there can be more number of bidders and when more number of bidders participate it is expected that it will fetch higher price. If the auction purchaser has not deposited 1/41h of the sale consideration immediately nor the balance consideration within 15 days as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 84 CPC, the sale automatically stands cancelled. It is not necessary either for the judgment debtor or for any one even to file an application for setting aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. It is the duty of the Court to set aside the sale on failure to comply the mandatory provisions. Since there is an irregularity in conducting the sale, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC would come into play. The above irregularity committed by the executing court, extending the period for conducting the sale, will definitely cause substantial injury to judgment debtor. It is the duty of the Court to set aside the sale on failure to comply the mandatory provisions. Since there is an irregularity in conducting the sale, Order XXI Rule 90 CPC would come into play. The above irregularity committed by the executing court, extending the period for conducting the sale, will definitely cause substantial injury to judgment debtor. In view of the same, lower Court rightly set aside the sale. 27. Further, collusion between the auction purchaser and decree holder is evident from the report of the Field Assistant, Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gajwel, who conducted auction. The sale has been accepted by the decree holder in its counter. Under these circumstances, the lower Court rightly allowed E.A.Nos.23 and 24 of 2007 setting aside the auction and canceling the sale certificate which do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference. 28. It is fairly well settled that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it can be capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 29. There cannot be any better case than this which calls for intervention of the Court to undo the injustice caused. In our view, the lower Court rightly set aside the sale conducted and cancel the sale certificate issued by it. But we cannot appreciate the criticism levelled against the previous officer, who passed the order dated 05-12-2006, for calling the report from the Bailiff with regard to details of the bid amount, since no one objected the procedure adopted by the lower court. It is very difficult for the Presiding Officer to know whether the advocate who representing the judgment debtor was engaged by judgment debtor or not unless the same is brought to his notice. In view of the same, remarks made against the Presiding Officer are expunged from the order. 30. For the reasons mentioned above and the conclusions reached by us, we do not find any merit in the appeals and revision and they are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.