JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Judgment debtor no. 3 Dalbir Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 10.5.2010 Annexure P/1 passed by the executing court thereby dismissing objection petition filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings. 2. Suit filed by respondents no. 1 to 6/decree holders against petitioner and proforma respondents no. 7 to 11 was decreed for recovery of money with interest. Decree holders (DHs) filed execution petition wherein land of judgment debtors (JDs) was attached. The land was sold. Respondent no. 1 (one of the decree holders) with prior permission of the executing court, purchased the attached land being highest bidder and deposited the auction money. 3. Petitioner filed objections alleging that their regular second appeal was pending in this Court. It was also alleged that auction took place in clandestine manner and the land was sold for lesser price than market price and requisite notice was not served on the JDs. It was also pleaded that interest @ 18% per annum has been awarded which is excessive and future interest exceeding 6% per annum could not have been awarded. The petitioner also prayed for permission to pay the decretal amount with interest @ 6% per annum in installments. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid objections pleaded by the petitioner in his objection petition. It was also submitted that pursuant to interim order of this Court, the petitioner has already deposited the decretal amount in the executing court. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgments in the cases of M/s Aman Industries and Ors. Versus Punjab Financial Corporation, 1991(2) PLR 615; Desh Bandhu Gupta versus N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh, 1993(3) R.R.R. 600; M/s Frid Paper Mills (P) Ltd. Versus Punjab Financial Corp., Chd., 1994(3) PLR 335 and M/s Shalimar Cinema versus Bhasin Film Corporation and another, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2081 (1). 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the matter. Admittedly, there is no stay of execution proceedings in the regular second appeal preferred by the JDs. Consequently, executing court rightly proceeded with the execution proceedings. 6. On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 6 controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the matter. Admittedly, there is no stay of execution proceedings in the regular second appeal preferred by the JDs. Consequently, executing court rightly proceeded with the execution proceedings. The execution proceedings could not have been stayed by the executing court merely because regular second appeal by the JDs was pending, because there was no interim stay of the execution proceedings in the said appeal. The plea of the petitioner that notice was not served and the land was sold for lesser price cannot be accepted. It has been specifically observed in the impugned order that notice under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure was duly served. Consequently, judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner do not help the petitioner. It also cannot be said that the auction was conducted in clandestine manner because even police help was granted for conducting auction proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the auction was conducted in clandestine manner. DH was also granted permission to take part in the auction because nobody else might be coming forward to bid in the auction. In these circumstances, whatever market value was fetched at the auction has to be accepted. Here it may be noticed that in public auction in execution proceedings, the property never fetches market value because the purchaser is not sure if he would at all be successful in getting property even after paying the auction money and if so after how many years or decades. Confirmation of the sale takes long time. Even thereafter, taking of actual possession of the property purchased takes further long time. Consequently, the bidder at the auction in the execution proceedings takes into consideration all these factors and therefore, the property would never fetch actual market value. In any event, when respondent no. 1/DH No. 1 was permitted to bid in auction, it would mean that the auction was not fetching many bidders and therefore, even if it is assumed that the land fetched lesser than market price, the sale cannot be set aside on this ground alone. Moreover, JDs were at liberty to bring better buyer/bidder. There is no irregularity or illegality in conducting the auction. Moreover, JDs were at liberty to bring better buyer/bidder. There is no irregularity or illegality in conducting the auction. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the interest could not be awarded exceeding 6% per annum could not be accepted in the execution proceedings because the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The said plea can obviously be raised in the regular second appeal filed by the JDs. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that objection petition filed by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the executing court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the executing court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Decretal amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to interim order of this Court shall be refunded to him. 10. Civil miscellaneous application, if any pending, is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. --------------