JUDGMENT Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- This revision petition has been preferred by thepetitioners against the order dated 04.04.2006 passed byAdditional District Judge, Sonepat vide which order dated17.01.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat,dismissing the objections filed by the petitioners was upheld. 2. Civil Suit No.702 dated 02.12.1983 was filed byrespondent No.1/decree holder for recovery of Rs.61,843.20.Petitioner No.1 is a proprietorship firm who took loan fromrespondent No.1/Bank after mortgaging the suit land as securityfor repayment of the loan. Loan was not repaid as per terms andconditions of the loan. The suit was decreed vide judgment anddecree dated 09.06.1987 along with cost. In execution of thedecree, property of the firm was put to auction and was sold for aconsideration of Rs.2,80,000/- by the process of the Court.Objections were filed under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section47 and 151 CPC on the ground of irregularity and fraud as theproperty did not exclusively belong to objector Rajender Parshad.The property was worth more than Rs.40,00,000/- and was soldat a meager amount of Rs.2,80,000/- in collusion with officials ofBank/decree holder and auction purchaser. Mandatory provisionsof Order 21 Rule 66 CPC were not complied with, nor thejudgment debtor was served with notice under Order 21 Rule 66CPC. The execution was filed on 25.07.1992. Ram Dhanprincipal judgment debtor died on 06.03.1989. On 02.11.1993,report was received by the executing Court regarding the death ofRam Dhan. Death certificate of Ram Dhan was tendered byRajender Parshad son of Ram Dhan through whom petitionerNo.1 has been impleaded. On 20.11.1993, executing Courtordered for issuance of warrant of attachment. On 20.11.1993,following order was passed:- “Present: Counsel for decree holder. List of property filed by DH. Now warrant ofattachment be issued for 05.02.1994 on previous PF andold MF etc. Sd/- SJIC, Sonepat, 20.11.1993.” 3. Attachment was effected and notice under Order 21Rule 66 CPC was ordered to be issued to the judgment debtor for23.04.1994 on filing application and PF etc. vide order dated05.03.1994. After the order dated 20.11.1993, Bank/decreeholder filed an application, showing the value of the land andbuilding as Rs.10,00,000/- along with affidavit of BranchManager. A notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was allegedlyissued and was allegedly served upon the judgment debtor andthereafter, auction was fixed for 27.05.1996. The auction washeld on 07.06.1996 for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The sale wasconfirmed on 14.09.1996. A notice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was allegedlyissued and was allegedly served upon the judgment debtor andthereafter, auction was fixed for 27.05.1996. The auction washeld on 07.06.1996 for an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-. The sale wasconfirmed on 14.09.1996. The objections filed by the judgmentdebtors/objectors under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 47and 151 CPC were dismissed by the executing Court vide orderdated 17.01.2006 by holding that in the execution filed by thedecree holder, Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocate appeared on behalf ofthe judgment debtor. The aforesaid fact was established from theorders dated 02.01.1993 and 27.09.1995. When the judgmentdebtor did not deposit the decreetal amount, the mortgagedproperty was put to auction. Warrant of attachment was issued on20.11.1993 and auction was done on 07.06.1996. The auctionwas confirmed on 14.09.1996. Sale certificate was issued torespondent No.2 under Order 21 Rule 94 CPC on 19.03.1997. 4. As per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, the timeprescribed for filing application to set aside a sale in execution ofa decree including any application by the judgment debtor is 60days from the date of sale. Earlier the limitation was of 30 days,however, vide Amendment Act No.104 of 1976, the amendedprovision was enforced w.e.f 01.02.1977. Executing Court heldthat the objections were hopelessly time barred as the judgmentdebtor had already appeared before the executing Court throughShri I.S. Saroha, Advocate and the property was sold thereafter.The objections were filed after a period of one year and fivemonths and therefore, the objections were held to be hopelesslytime barred. Order dated 17.01.2006 was upheld by the LowerAppellate Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2006. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that nonotice under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was ever issued to thejudgment debtor and property was never attached as perrequirement under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC. There was noncomplianceof Order 21 Rule 54 CPC as no notice was issued tothe judgment debtor to assist the Court for fixing the date in whatmanner the property was to be sold. The value of the property asper statement of Architect Shri B.P. Singh (OW 3) was aboutRs.40,00,000/-, whereas the value of the property was claimed bythe Bank to be Rs.10,00,000/- only. Even the auction was held forRs.2,80,000/- without any basis. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 CPCwere not complied with and the auction was held without notice tothe judgment debtor. Even the auction was held forRs.2,80,000/- without any basis. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 CPCwere not complied with and the auction was held without notice tothe judgment debtor. The date of auction was fixed for27.05.1996 and the same was adjourned to 07.06.1996 withoutany order of the Court. No munadi was effected for the adjourneddate as the munadi had already been done on 19.04.1996 for thedate of auction as on 27.05.1996. No date and time wasmentioned in the advertisement. Legal representative of RamDhan was not impleaded as party and the execution was filedagainst a dead person. Learned counsel also submitted that fraudhas been committed from the very inception and the fraud hasvitiated the entire proceedings. Learned counsel relied upon S.P.Changlevarya Naidu Vs. Jagan Nath, 1994(1) PLR 293 (SC). 7. Learned counsel further submitted that Shri I.S.Saroha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors.Order dated 02.01.1993 would show that Shri I.S. Saroha,Advocate appeared on behalf of judgment debtors No.1 to 4 asjudgment debtor No.5 was stated to be dead. On 22.05.1993,none appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors and they wereproceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, warrants of attachmentwere issued against the judgment debtors for 14.08.1993. 8. Learned counsel by referring to M/s MahakalAutomobiles Vs. Krishan Swaroop Sharma, 2008(3) RCR(Civil) 54and S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs and others Vs.Siddappa and another, 2005(10) SCC 235 contended that Courtwas obligated to sell the proportionate property to answer theclaim instead of putting the entire property to sale. No reserveprice was mentioned and no publication was done. Even LR ofdeceased Ram Dhan (judgment debtor) was not impleaded. Thedate of auction i.e. 27.05.1996 was changed to 07.06.1996without any order of the Court and therefore, the entireproceedings were fraudulent. Reliance was placed on SatyaNarain Bajoria Vs. Ram Narain Tibrewal, AIR 1999(SC) 1583and it was submitted that entire proceedings were vitiated as perratio laid down in Desh Bandhu Gupta Vs. N.L. Anand, 1994(1) SCC 131 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the suit was decreed on 09.06.1987and since then, the petitioners/judgment debtors had played hideand seek with the Court. Once Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocateappeared on behalf of the judgment debtors on 02.01.1993,thereafter, judgment debtors cannot be allowed to plead nointimation in respect of pending execution. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the suit was decreed on 09.06.1987and since then, the petitioners/judgment debtors had played hideand seek with the Court. Once Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocateappeared on behalf of the judgment debtors on 02.01.1993,thereafter, judgment debtors cannot be allowed to plead nointimation in respect of pending execution. They veryconveniently preferred to be proceeded against ex parte on22.05.1993 and never filed any objections under Order 21 Rule66 CPC even after conducting auction on 07.06.1996 andconfirmation of sale on 14.09.1996. Judgment debtors/petitionerswere required to file objections in terms of Article 127 of theLimitation Act. The period of limitation even as per amendedprovision was 60 days from the date of sale. No such objectionswere filed by the judgment debtors. All the grounds on whichreliance has been placed by the petitioners could have beenagitated in the objections under Order 21 Rule 89/90 CPC. 10. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is appreciatedthat Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocate appeared without any power ofattorney on 02.01.1993 and thereafter, he did not appear on22.05.1993. The filing of memorandum of appearance by Shri I.S.Saroha, Advocate on 02.01.1993 could have been treated to bean authority only for a date. Petitioners have not come forward tochallenge the authority of Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocate on the basisof memorandum of appearance for the date i.e. 02.01.1993 atany point of time, nor any action was initiated against Shri I.S.Saroha, Advocate. Such ground could have been a ground forsetting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 22.05.1993, but nosuch action was resorted to by the judgment debtors/petitioners.Petitioners cannot be allowed to deny the knowledge in respect ofsale on 07.06.1996. Thereafter, petitioners were expected to actpromptly in terms of filing objections under Order 21 Rule 89/90CPC within stipulated period. Having not done so, the petitionerscannot be allowed to re-agitate the controversy from the stage ofOrder 21 Rule 54 CPC or from the stage of Order 21 Rule 66CPC. Even the petitioners were having a remedy of filingobjections under Order 21 Rule 89/90 CPC by depositing a sumequal to 5 % of the purchase money. At that stage, in order tomaintain the objections and for payment to the decree holder, theamount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for therecovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount whichmay, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have beenreceived by the decree holder. At that stage, in order tomaintain the objections and for payment to the decree holder, theamount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for therecovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount whichmay, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have beenreceived by the decree holder. As per Order 21 Rule 90(3) CPC,no application to set aside a sale on the ground of irregularity orfraud shall be entertained upon any ground which theapplicant/judgment debtors could have taken on or before thedate on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. The mereabsence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not,by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under the aforesaidRule. 11. Having considered the controversy in the light ofaforesaid facts, I am of the view that the grounds on which theimpugned orders have been assailed in the revision petition arenot attracted as the petitioners/judgment debtors had theknowledge of intended sale w.e.f 02.01.1993 when Shri I.S.Saroha, Advocate appeared on behalf of judgment debtors No.1to 4 by filing memorandum of appearance. Even if, said Advocatewas not having any power of attorney for subsequentappearance, the appearance of the Advocate on 02.01.1993 wasnever assailed by the petitioners/judgment debtors at any point oftime. Subsequent ex parte proceedings could have been setaside in accordance with law on the basis of allegedincompetence of Shri I.S. Saroha, Advocate to represent thejudgment debtors in execution. That exercise has not been takenby the judgment debtors at any point of time even after acquiringknowledge of the auction and confirmation of sale. The filing ofobjections under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC on the ground ofirregularity and fraud is not competent at this juncture, particularlywhen the objections are hopelessly time barred. 12. As per record of the case, civil suit was filed on02.12.1983. The suit was decreed on 09.06.1987. The executionwas filed on 25.07.1992. The auction was held on 07.06.1996.The sale was confirmed on 14.09.1996. Objections were filed on19.02.1998 as per the date of institution depicted on the judgmentdated 17.01.2006. The filing of objections on 19.02.1998 from thedate of auction and even from the date of confirmation of salewas beyond the prescribed period in terms of Article 127 of theLimitation Act. No prayer was made for condonation of delay inaccordance with law. Petitioners filed the present revision petitionin July 2006. Thereafter, it was re-filed after a period of threeyears. The filing of objections on 19.02.1998 from thedate of auction and even from the date of confirmation of salewas beyond the prescribed period in terms of Article 127 of theLimitation Act. No prayer was made for condonation of delay inaccordance with law. Petitioners filed the present revision petitionin July 2006. Thereafter, it was re-filed after a period of threeyears. During the intervening period, respondent No.2 vide saledeed dated 09.05.2008 transferred the property in favour of M/sSwastik Diagnostics & Equipments Pvt. Ltd., 102 Ambar TowerCommercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi. The aforesaid subsequentpurchaser has also filed CM No.21378-CII of 2013 under Order22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC forsubstitution in place of respondent No.2 being a bonafide/subsequent purchaser or to be impleaded as respondentNo.5 in the revision petition. The subsequent purchaser also filedCM No.21379-CII of 2013 for dismissal of the revision petition onthe question of delay of more than three years on the ground thatoriginal revision petition was filed on 05.07.2006. The Registrytook certain objections on 17.07.2006. Re-filing was done alongwith application for condonation of delay in re-filing, but the samewas again returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners on29.09.2006. Thereafter, for long three years, nothing was doneand finally revision petition was re-filed on 24.08.2009 and thesame was returned on 04.09.2009. The same was again re-filedon 15.09.2009 and the same was listed for the first time on10.12.2009 when notice of motion was issued. During theintervening period, the subsequent purchaser had purchased theproperty in a bona fide manner in the year 2008. On 29.05.2014,High Court dismissed the revision petition for want of bana fidesin filing the revision petition in 2006 and re-filing the revisionpetition after the period of three years. However, the said orderwas recalled on 19.12.2014. Reply to the application i.e CMNo.21378-CII of 2013 was filed by the petitioners on 06.12.2013. 13. In view of attending facts and circumstances of thecase, subsequent purchaser is entitled to be brought on record asrespondent No.5. Therefore, CM No.21378-CII of 2013 isallowed. M/s Swastik Diagnostics & Equipments Pvt. Ltd., 102Ambar Tower Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi is ordered tobe impleaded as respondent No.5. 14. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not findany justification to interfere in the impugned orders passed by theCourts below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.