Judgment : 1. Exts. P2 and P3 orders passed by the Sub Court in an execution proceeding in EP No.264/2008 in O.S. No.470/2000 are challenged by the decree holder. In execution of a decree for money, immovable property of the judgment debtor was attached and brought to sale. After the sale also became absolute and followed by issue of sale certificate and delivery of the property, judgment debtor moved two applications before the execution court, one for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte in the execution proceedings and the other for setting aside the sale. Latter of the two applications was filed under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’. Learned sub judge overruling the objection raised by decree holder has allowed both applications vide Exts.P2 and P3 orders respectively. Those orders are challenged in the above O.P. invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Concededly, the judgment debtor in his application moved for setting aside the order declaring him exparte under Rule 106 of Order XXI of the Code has set forth a case that he did not receive notice on the execution petition filed, and had no knowledge of subsequent proceedings since he was employed abroad. Though evidence in the case indicated that he came to the country while execution proceedings continued and various orders were passed during its course learned sub judge gave more consideration to the endorsement made in the notice issued to him to hold that there was no personal service. Accepting the case canvassed by judgment debtor allowing his application order setting him ex parte in execution proceedings was set aside. 4. Learned sub judge has not taken note of nor understood the true meaning and import of sub rule (1) Rule 106 of Order XXI of the Code. That sub rule reads thus; “ 106. Accepting the case canvassed by judgment debtor allowing his application order setting him ex parte in execution proceedings was set aside. 4. Learned sub judge has not taken note of nor understood the true meaning and import of sub rule (1) Rule 106 of Order XXI of the Code. That sub rule reads thus; “ 106. Setting aside orders passed ex parte, etc.-” (1) The applicant, against whom an order is made under sub-rule (2) of rule 105 or the opposite party against whom an order is passed ex-parte under sub-rule (3) of that rule or under sub-rule (1) of rule 23, may apply to the Court to set aside the order, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the application was called on for hearing, the Court shall set aside the order on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it think fit, and shall appoint a day for the further hearing of the application. (2)…………… (rest not required and hence omitted) A close reading of the sub rule would indicate in execution proceedings after notice is issued to judgment debtor and if he failed to appear in response to that notice no question of passing any order treating him as ex parte emerges for consideration, but, only holding that he is absent. Sub rule (1) referred to above contemplates of subsequent orders passed by the Court which no doubt in such circumstances are ex parte orders against the judgment debtor when he failed to appear in response to the notices and remained as such. At different stages of execution the scheme covered under Order XXI provides for notice to the judgment debtor to secure and safeguard his interests in proceedings thereof as against his person or property or both. So much so, in an execution proceeding after passing through all those stages pursuant to sale and delivery of a property belonging to judgment debtor, effected in compliance of the rules and formalities there under is over, any application moved by judgment debtor with reference to non-receipt of a notice under order XXI Rule 22 of the Code would not enable him to annul and set aside the ex parte orders passed at different stages in execution proceedings. On the facts and circumstances present in the case, where it has come out that the judgment debtor had come to the country from his place of employment during the pendency of execution proceedings and also before proceeding with sale of his property publication as contemplated by rules had been effected, which in fact was a notice not only to the judgment debtor but to the general public as a whole, the belated application moved by judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 106 of the Code as if everything which transpired in the execution proceedings could be set at naught showing that he did not receive notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code was totally bereft of any merit. Further more, when a sale of the property has taken place that can be impeached only as provided by law. May be in a deserving case, an application from the judgment debtor would lie under Section 47 of the Code with respect to orders passed at different stages in the execution proceedings provided such orders are impeachable as having been passed without jurisdiction or suffering from illegality. But in the proved facts no application under Order XXI Rule 106 of the Code at the instance of the judgment debtor as canvassed for was entertainable. 5. Learned sub judge has gone wrong in passing Ext. P2 order as if the judgment debtor was set exparte in the execution proceedings and, then, for reopening the entire execution proceedings which have become final and infact insulated with finality. Application moved by the judgment debtor for setting aside the sale, whether it be under Order XXI Rule 89 or 90 of the Code, after sale has become absolute, was totally misconceived and it could not have been entertained by the execution court. On that ground itself Ext.P2 order is liable to be set aside. Exts. P2 and P3 are set aside. Original petition is disposed of as above.