JUDGMENT Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - This petition is directed against the order dated 9.8.2010. The petitioner who is the judgment debtor was facing execution proceedings. He did not deposit the decretal amount leading to the auction of the property which was conducted after following due procedure of law. Respondent no.2 is the auction purchaser who deposited the entire amount pursuant to the said auction. The petitioner moved an application under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151 CPC for filing his objections and pleaded that the auction was a result of fraud. The said objections were moved on 15.6.2010, but was declined by the Executing Court on the same date which led to the filing of an appeal which has also been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were always willing and ready to pay the entire amount on the date of auction and on 15.6.2010 they moved an application to that effect and also made an offer that they were willing to make the payment of the entire decretal amount and were also ready to compensate the respondent by paying 5% more as is requirement under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC. Their further grievance is that their offer was never considered by the Courts below and the objections were dismissed in a summary manner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has contended that after the conclusion of the auction his rights have come into existence which cannot be defeated on the plea that the petitioners were ready and willing to make the entire payment in question. Moreso, when their application (Annexure P-5) does not reveal any offer which they purport to have made. It is further contended that the application was moved under Order 21 Rule 90 and not under Order 21 Rule 89 and the entire case of the petitioners’ is falsified from such fact. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as also the other relevant material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition is totally mis-conceived. The petitioners in the first instance did not satisfy the decree leading to a situation where their property was put to auction and after auction having been conducted in accordance with law, they chose to file objections by moving an application under Order 21 Rule 90. The petitioners in the first instance did not satisfy the decree leading to a situation where their property was put to auction and after auction having been conducted in accordance with law, they chose to file objections by moving an application under Order 21 Rule 90. If the objections are to be seen the petitioners have not made any such offer as has been projected before this Court. The objections are totally silent upon this aspect of the matter. The objection has also been filed under Order 21 Rule 90 and not under Order 21 Rule 89 and even if the nomenclature is to be ignored yet by looking at the contents of the application there is not even a remote suggestion that the petitioners are willing to make the payment of the amount in question and also ready to comply with provisions of Order 21 Rule 89 by paying additional 5% amount. Therefore the Court was right in declining the objections of the petitioners. Hence, there is no legal infirmity committed by the Court below and no interference in the revisional jurisdiction is warranted. 5. Hence dismissed. -----------------------