ORDER : Judgment debtor filed the above revision against the order dated 02.02.2022 in E.A.No.42 of 2020 in E.P.No.78 of 2017 in O.S.No.81 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal. 2. Respondent/Decree Holder filed suit O.S.No.81 of 2015 against the revision petitioner for recovery of amount. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.199 of 2015 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC to attach the petition schedule property. By order dated 07.09.2016 the said petition was allowed, and the attachment effected on 29.09.2015 was made absolute. Eventually, the suit was decreed on 07.09.2016. Pursuant to said decree and judgment, E.P.No.78of 2017 was filed under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 r/w Section 151 of CPC, to conduct public auction of attached property to realize the E.P. amount. Auction was conducted on 12.07.2019. Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.42 of 2020 under Order XXI Rules 89, 90 and 106 of CPC. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that decree holder filed the suit for recovery of money and the suit was decreed exparte; summons were not served on the petitioner; that plaintiff served notices by way of substitute service; that petitioner is in Kuwait from 04.09.2016; that recently few days back, site owners called the petitioner and informed about proceedings, then the petitioner got the proceedings; that mother of petitioner filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC and eventually, prayed the Court to set aside the sale. 4. Respondent/Decree holder filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended interalia that in the suit the judgment debtor appeared through advocate by name V.Nagaraju, who filed written statement in suit and also counter in the attachment petition and contested the suit and petition; that suit was decreed; that judgment debtor as well as his family members are well aware of the proceedings; that in execution after the auction of property was conducted, the auction purchased deposited sale consideration and stamp duty amount; that this application is filed to delay the proceedings and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. By order dated 02.02.2022 the Court below dismissed the application. Against the said order, the above revision is filed. 6. Heard Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 7. 5. By order dated 02.02.2022 the Court below dismissed the application. Against the said order, the above revision is filed. 6. Heard Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that decree holder obtained decree by playing fraud on the Court. He would also submit that notices were served on judgment debtor by way of substitute service and the judgment debtor was residing in Kuwait from 04.09.2016. He would further submit that E.P. amount is Rs.3,30,340/-, whereas the value of schedule property is Rs.20,00,000/- and he thus, prayed to set aside the sale. 8. In the suit decree was passed on 07.09.2016. Defendant appointed an advocate who, inturn, filed vakalat. He also filed written statement and counter in the petition filed seeking attachment of property. Thus, the contention of judgment debtor that he is not aware of the decree and the trial Court passed an exparte decree is not correct for the reasons stated supra. Suit was decreed on 07.09.2016. As per the averment of petitioner in his affidavit, he left India on 10.10.2016. Thus, even before judgment debtor left India, decree was passed on 07.09.2016. The material on record would indicate that Guntakal I Town limits issued verification certificate on 24.09.2016 and hence, the contention of petitioner that he was in Kuwait on 04.09.2016 is a blatant lie. The executing Court considered all these aspects and dismissed the application. 9. As can be seen from E.A. filed by the judgment debtor, it was filed under Rules 89, 90 and 106 of Order XXI of CPC. If the application is to be treated as one under Rule 89, the judgment debtor must deposit 5% of the purchase money and also sale amount within 60 days under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. However, no such amount was deposited. Apart from that petition was filed after 60 days. The affidavit filed in court below doesn’t indicate the grounds to set aside the sale as enumerated under Rule 90 of Order 21. 10. It is pertinent to mention that mother of judgment debtor filed application much prior to 30.09.2019 to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Thus, the judgment debtor cannot contend that he is not aware of the proceedings. 10. It is pertinent to mention that mother of judgment debtor filed application much prior to 30.09.2019 to set aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Thus, the judgment debtor cannot contend that he is not aware of the proceedings. This Court granted stay of the proceedings on condition of deposit of 50% of the decretal amount in this revision, the said order was not complied with. Learned counsel for respondent also brought to the notice of this Court that sale certificate was issued by confirming sale. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below would disclose that the executing Court considered all the aspects in detail and dismissed the application by recording reasons. The order of the executing Court is neither perverse nor amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested with it. Hence, the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.