JUDGMENT : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Decree Holder/Plaintiff under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order, dated 05.11.2012, in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2010 on the file of the Appellate Court below i.e., Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle, Guntur District. 2. The parties herein after will be referred to as ‘petitioner’/judgment debtor and ‘respondent’/decree holder as arrayed before the appellate court in C.M.A. No. 5/2010. 3. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that the respondent/decree holder filed suit in O.S.No.286 of 2000 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Repalle and obtained a Decree for Rs.1,12,044/-. The respondent filed EP 5 of 2003 to attach Ac.3.56 cents of petitioner, and to sell the same property for Rs.6,12,000/- against the warrant amount of Rs.1,17,522/-, for realization of the decretal amount. The value of the schedule property per acre as per the Government is Rs.4,66,360/-. The market value of the entire schedule property was more than Rs.25 lakhs @ Rs.7 lakhs per acre. The executing court ought to have Ac.1.00 itself which would be sufficient to satisfy the warrant amount of Rs.1,17,522/-. But the Executing Court violated the provisions of Order 21, Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) and sold the entire property. Hence, the respondent filed E.A. No.34 of 2010 in E.P.No.5 of 2003 in O.S.No.286 of 2000 before the executing court to set aside the sale. 4. The respondent/decree holder filed a counter denying all the material averments in the petition-affidavit, and further contended that in the attachment petition the J.Dr., took plea that the property does not belongs to him. However, such objection was overruled and notice under Order 21, Rule 66 CPC was issued. On receipt of the said notice, the J.Dr., made his appearance, and on merits orders were passed. The J.Dr., got filed a claim petition in E.A. No. 132 of 2004 through his mother, sisters and brother and the same was also dismissed. At the time of conducting sale, the J.Dr., did not raise any such objection. The sale was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. The present application is barred by law of limitation and liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties in the execution application before the executing court. The sale was conducted in accordance with the provisions of law. The present application is barred by law of limitation and liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both the parties in the execution application before the executing court. Executing Court dismissed the application. 6. The Appellate Court below on hearing both sides and considering the material on record, opined that the sale conducted by the Executing Court on 15.11.2005 was not in accordance with law as there was a material irregularity and and set aside the sale. 7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is, “Whether the order of the Appellate Court below warrants any interference of this Court under section 115 of CPC / Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” POINT:- 8. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the Appellate Court below grossly erred in applying Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 instead of Article 127 for the application filed by the respondent/J.Dr., under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC, which applies only to an application filed by an auction purchaser seeking for delivery of possession of the property purchased in the auction conducted by the Court. The further contention of the revision petitioner is that to file the application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC the limitation is 60 days and it starts from the date of sale and in that view of the matter the application was filed by the J.Dr., after 60 days from the date of sale, is barred by limitation. The further contention of the revision petitioner is that the material on record clearly establish that the judgment debtor has participated throughout the execution proceedings before the executing court, but he never pleaded illegality, irregularity or fraud in the sale of the property or he did not raise any objection at that time stating that part of the property only sufficient to satisfy the decree. On the other hand, his contention was that the property does not belong to him, and his mother, sister and brother filed application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC, and the same was dismissed by the Court and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. On the other hand, his contention was that the property does not belong to him, and his mother, sister and brother filed application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC, and the same was dismissed by the Court and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. Subsequently, the J.Dr., filed another application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC and it was also dismissed by the Executing Court and the J.Dr., also filed a revision petition before the High Court and it was also dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per the judgment of this Court in Jagati Thimmaraju v. Uppuluri Brahmanna reported in 1998 (3) ALD 404 , Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application filed Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, to set aside the sale on the ground of certain irregularities in the conduct of sale, and if the application filed beyond 60 days from the date of sale, it is barred by limitation. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Guttikonda Venkataramaiah vs. Godavarthy Venkateswarlu and another reported in 2015 (1) ALD (SC) 1 held that when J.Dr., has not raised any objection about the conduct of sale for the whole property, when he has an opportunity to raise objection, he could not file an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC later, in view of the bar under sub-clause (3) of Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aarifaben Yunusbhai Patel and others vs. Mukul Thakorebhai Amin and others reported in (2020) 5 SCC 449 held that the limitation for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of decree is 60 days in terms of Article 127 of the Limitation Act, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which deals with extension of time for condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Or. 21, R.90 CPC and therefore, the delay, if any in filing of proceedings under Or. 21, R. 90 CPC, cannot be condoned under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Further Apex Court also observed that the limitation issue if raised, the Court first must decide the objection raised by the decree holder first before going into the other issues. 10. 21, R.90 CPC and therefore, the delay, if any in filing of proceedings under Or. 21, R. 90 CPC, cannot be condoned under S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Further Apex Court also observed that the limitation issue if raised, the Court first must decide the objection raised by the decree holder first before going into the other issues. 10. Hence, the revision petitioner is harping upon two grounds, one is limitation under Article 127 of Limitation Act and the other is prohibition under Order 21, Rule 90 (3) of CPC. GROUND No.1:- 11. The admitted facts are that the Executing Court conducted the sale on 15.11.2005, the application under Order 21, Rule 90 of the CPC was filed 21.12.2009 and the sale was confirmed on 31.12.2009. The Executing Court dismissed the above application filed by the J.Dr., on 23.07.2010 on the ground that the J.Dr., has failed to prove the irregularities happened in the sale, and further that the J.Dr., has participated in each and every proceeding in the execution proceedings from the date of attachment till the date of sale and no where he raised such a plea now raised, including the application under Order 21, Rule 89 of the CPC, and therefore, the J.Dr., has no right to ask for setting aside of sale. 12. The learned Senior Civil Judge in the order held that the limitation starts from the date of confirmation of sale as per Article 134 of the Limitation Act by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar reported in (2006) 3 SCC 49 . 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in similar circumstances in para 7 of the judgment in Aarifaben Yunusbhai Patel v. Mukul Thakorebhai Amin (cited supra) held as under:- “7. We may note that it has been strenuously urged by Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the Respondents that the sale is fraudulent without following the procedure prescribed by law, but we are clearly of the view that first we have to decide whether the objections filed by the respondents were filed within time or not. In case the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation it is not necessary for the Court to go into other issues.” 14. In case the petition is filed beyond the period of limitation it is not necessary for the Court to go into other issues.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para No.9 regarding the limitation for filing application to set aside the sale in executing of decree held as under: - “The limitation for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of decree is 60 days in terms of Article 127 of Third Division, Part1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act). Reference may also be made to Section 5 of the Act which reads as follows: “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. — Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation. - The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.” A bare reading of this provision clearly shows that Section 5 of the Act which deals with extension of time or condonation of delay is not applicable to proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. Therefore, the delay, if any, cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Act.” 15. In the light of above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is necessary to refer Article 127 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:- Description of Application Period of Limitation Time from which period Begins to run To set aside in execution of a decree, including any such application by a judgment-debtor. Sixty Days The date of sale 16. This Court in Jagati Thimmaraju v. Uppuluri Brahmanna (cited supra) held as under:- “Apart from this, he also states that the petitioner has preferred this application at the fag end of three years i.e., 23-6-1990, whereas the sale of the property was effected on 24-6-1987. To file an application raising objections to sale of the property, Article 127 of the Limitation Act is applicable.” 17. To file an application raising objections to sale of the property, Article 127 of the Limitation Act is applicable.” 17. In the light of Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is very clear that the judgment debtor has to raise any objection with regard to the irregularities or fraud in conducting sale within 60 days from the date of sale. 18. Article 134 deals with limitation regarding the application filed by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of decree for delivery of possession. It has nothing to do with an application filed by a judgment debtor to set aside a sale in execution of a decree on the ground of irregularity or fraud. 19. In the light of the above legal position, the finding of the Appellate Court below basing on Article 134 of the Limitation Act, that to file an application under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC limitation is one year from the date of confirmation of sale, is erroneous and contrary to law of Limitation. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied on by the Appellate Court below (Balakrishnan’s case cited supra) has no application to the facts of the case on hand, since the application in the case on hand is filed by the judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC and not by the purchaser for delivery of possession. 20. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Appellate Court below is erroneous, and liable to be set aside on that ground alone. GROUND No.2: - 21. When coming to the second ground raised by the revision petitioner/D.Hr., the material on record, including the order of the Executing Court makes it clear that the respondent/judgment-debtor has participated at every stage of the execution proceedings. He did not file any application soon after the sale, and it is further established that his contention earlier was that the property does not belong to him and accordingly, his mother, sister and brother filed E.A.132 of 2004 and it was dismissed by the Executing Court on 16.08.2005. Later, an appeal in A.S.No.33 of 2005 was challenging the same was filed, and it was also dismissed on 02.06.2008. Thereafter the judgment debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC in E.A.22 of 2006 after expiry of limitation, and it was also dismissed on merits. Later, an appeal in A.S.No.33 of 2005 was challenging the same was filed, and it was also dismissed on 02.06.2008. Thereafter the judgment debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 89 of CPC in E.A.22 of 2006 after expiry of limitation, and it was also dismissed on merits. The respondent/J.Dr., filed a revision before this Court in CRP No.3933 of 2009 and it was also dismissed by this Court. Later, sale was confirmed on 31.12.2009. Then the judgment debtor filed the present application under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. 22. As per sub-clause (3) of Rule 90 of Order 21 of CPC no application to set aside sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could not have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. 23. In the case on hand, as already discussed supra, the material on record establishes that the respondent/J.Dr., has participated at every stage of the proceedings. He received sale notice and received notice for settlement of terms under Order 21, Rule 66 of CPC, and on the date of auction also he did not raise any objection that sale of part of the property is only sufficient to satisfy the decree. Therefore, on this ground also the application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC cannot be entertained. The Appellate Court below set aside the order of the Executing Court on the ground that it is a statutory duty of the Court under Order 21, Rule 64 of the CPC that only such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree shall be sold. It appears that the appellate Court below was under an impression that sale of the whole property against Order 21, Rule 64 CPC is a nullity. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Guttikonda Venkataramaiah Vs. Godvarthy Venkateswarlu and another (cited supra) in similar circumstances held as under:- “18. In our opinion, respondent no.1 ought to have raised his objection at the stage when the property in question was to be sold by an auction. He did not do so. Subsequently, after the property was sold at the auction, he approached the High Court, though a proper remedy for him was to file an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC. He did not do so. Subsequently, after the property was sold at the auction, he approached the High Court, though a proper remedy for him was to file an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC. When the High Court had directed him to file appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum, he did so, but there also he was so careless that the proceedings had been concluded against him on account of defaults committed by him. 19. The aforestated circumstances very well show that the intention of the principal debtor is to avoid making payment to the decree holder. If the judgment delivered by the High Court is upheld, the entire proceedings with regard to execution will commence de novo and one does not know as to when the proceedings would be concluded and the decree holder would get the decretal amount. By this time, the decretal amount, which was Rs.3,55,732/- somewhere in 2006, must have increased substantially and it would not be just and proper to keep the decree holder waiting still more.” 24. This Court in Jagati Thimmaraju v. Uppuluri Brahmanna (cited supra) held as under:- “13. Next, Mr. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Counsel for the respondent relies on another three Judge-Bench Judgment of Apex Court in Dhirendra Nath v. Sudhir Chandra, wherein their Lordships have considered the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. and also the Bengal Money Lenders Act (10 of 1940) Section 35, where it was contended that whether Section 35 of the Act is mandatory or directory the sale held in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and the reasons prescribed in Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further when the respondents did not attend at the drawing up of the proclamation of sale, the sale cannot be set aside at their instance. Their Lordships in para 5 of the judgment, have considered the effect of Section 35 of Bengal Money Lenders Act (10 of 1940), Order 21 Rule 64 and Order 21 Rule 66. But, ultimately their Lordships agreed with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Akram and Chakravarti, JJ., in Mahindra Chandra v. Jagadish Chandra, 1950 Cal. WN 266.” 25. But, ultimately their Lordships agreed with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court consisting of Akram and Chakravarti, JJ., in Mahindra Chandra v. Jagadish Chandra, 1950 Cal. WN 266.” 25. Further, in Dhirendra Nath v. Sudhir Chandra reported in AIR 1964 SC 1300 a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the sale in violation of the said provision is only illegal but not a nullity and therefore, it can be set aside only in the manner and the reasons prescribed in Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC and further when the respondents did not attend at the drawing up of the proclamation of sale, the sale cannot be set aside at their instance. 26. Therefore, it is very clear that the sale held in violation of the provision is only illegal, but not a nullity and it can be set aside only in the manner and for the reasons prescribed under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. In the case on hand, as already discussed above, the respondent/J.Dr., did not raise any objection at the time of drawing up of proclamation of sale and on the date of sale regarding the sale of whole property against Order 21, Rule 64 of CPC. The respondent/J.Dr., after exhausting all the remedies through his mother, sister and brother, and by himself on different grounds from time to time, filed the present application on 21.12.2009, which is clearly barred by limitation in view of Article 127 of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Appellate Court below that it is a statutory duty of the Court to set aside the sale under the impression that the sale is a nullity, is erroneous as any sale shall be set aside only for the reasons prescribed under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC. 27. In the light of above discussion, the order of the Appellate Court below requires interference under section 115 of CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it is to be set aside. 28. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The Order dt.05.11.2012 in C.M.A. No.5 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle reversing the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.34 of 2010 in E.P.No.5 of 2003 in O.S.No.286 of 2000, dt.23.07.2010, is set aside. 28. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The Order dt.05.11.2012 in C.M.A. No.5 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Repalle reversing the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.34 of 2010 in E.P.No.5 of 2003 in O.S.No.286 of 2000, dt.23.07.2010, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.