JUDGMENT 1. The judgment debtor before the court executing the decree filed this civil revision petition under article 227 of the constitution of India impugning the order dtd. 13/8/2019 in E.A.No.223 of 2019 in E.P.No.114 of 2014 in O.S.No.494 of 2012 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. Respondent herein is the auction purchaser - cum - decree holder before the court executing the decree. 3. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments in support of their respective contentions. 4. The following facts are required to be noticed: O.S.No.494 of 2012 before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada was a suit for recovery of money. After due contest, the suit was decreed on 22/1/2014 in favour of the plaintiff/creditor. Since the decree directions for payment of money were not complied with by the defendant, the decree holder sought for execution of the decree passed in his favour and filed E.P.No.114 of 2014 before the court which passed the decree. That execution was levied under Order XXI Rules 66 and 64 of the CPC requesting the executing court to sell the A and B schedule mentioned properties after duly issuing notice to the JDr and after making necessary proclamations. Decree amount was Rs.2, 40, 700.00. By the time execution was levied, it stood at Rs.2, 87, 402.00. By the time the property was brought for sale, the amount overdue was Rs.3, 38, 603.00. We are concerned with that amount as it fell due as on 21/1/2019. Notices were ordered by the executing court and judgment debtor made his appearance through his learned counsel and the prayer of the decree holder in seeking sale of the EP schedule properties was opposed saying that it could not be sold since it belonged to joint family and since it was subjected to a mortgage. On 19/2/2016, learned Senior Civil Judge heard both sides and passed the order where under it overruled the objections and noted that there was mortgage and the decree holder was directed to notify the mortgage as an encumbrance in the sale proclamations that are to be taken out. Earlier to this order, the mortgagee had filed E.A.No.187 of 2015. On 19/2/2016, learned Senior Civil Judge heard both sides and passed the order where under it overruled the objections and noted that there was mortgage and the decree holder was directed to notify the mortgage as an encumbrance in the sale proclamations that are to be taken out. Earlier to this order, the mortgagee had filed E.A.No.187 of 2015. Mortgagee claimed that the EP schedule properties were mortgaged and he had sued in O.S.No.32 of 2014 and learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada decreed the suit in his favour. In that execution application, judgment debtor did not put up any contest. The decree holder laid his contest. By an order dtd. 5/2/2016, the executing court held that EP schedule properties were attached already and the attachments shall continue and in recognition to the mortgage, the decree obtained by the claimant, the sale in execution shall go ahead after notifying this mortgage. Be it noted all the above referred proceedings took place well in the presence of judgment debtor assisted by his learned counsel. 5. Thereafter the sale proceedings went ahead. Sale terms were settled. Proclamations were made and newspaper publication was done. Public auction was held and the property was sold by the court. On an application being allowed by the executing court, DHr also participated in the auction and eventually the decree holder became the highest bidder. In the said auction sale, execution petition A and B schedule properties were sold out. Total amounts that were required to be deposited were duly deposited by the decree holder in the executing court. The sale was confirmed on 13/8/2019. Thereafter the sale certificate was issued. Thereafter the decree holder applied for delivery of property in the year 2020 itself. 6. While the above events were progressing, the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.223 of 2019 before learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. This application was filed under Sec. 47 and under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. In the said application, he prayed the executing court to set aside the sale dtd. 21/1/2019. DHr filed her counter. After due enquiry and hearing, the executing court passed the order dtd. 13/8/2019 wherein it refused to set aside the sale and dismissed E.A.No.233 of 2019. It is nearly 2 years thereafter the JDr field the present Civil Revision Petition assailing the said order. 7. 21/1/2019. DHr filed her counter. After due enquiry and hearing, the executing court passed the order dtd. 13/8/2019 wherein it refused to set aside the sale and dismissed E.A.No.233 of 2019. It is nearly 2 years thereafter the JDr field the present Civil Revision Petition assailing the said order. 7. In this revision, the essential contentions raised are: As on 21/1/2019, the decree debt was Rs.3, 38, 603.00. Even according to DHr market value of A schedule property was Rs.4, 88, 250.00. Market value of B schedule property was Rs.5, 54, 889.00. That makes it clear that sale of one of the items itself could have satisfied the decree amount but the executing court, without application of mind, sold out both the items of properties which is irregular and illegal. The mortgage was not notified in the sale proclamations and that shall vitiate the sale. The executing court committed factual error in discarding the market value certificates filed by the JDr stating that they were incorrectly obtained depicting double the extent of the property. The right of redemption available to the JDr suffered since only a preliminary decree was obtained by the mortgagee. It is on these aspects, learned counsel for revision petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for respondent submits that All throughout the proceedings and even on the date of sale by way of public auction, JDr was present and never raised any of these objections and therefore executing court rightly invoked Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the CPC and rejected the contentions and there is no warrant for interference. Nearly two years after the impugned order was passed, the present revision is filed with a view to further harass the DHr. This revision being filed under article 227 of the constitution of India is not maintainable and an appeal under Order XXI Rules 103, 104 of the CPC or revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC ought to have been filed. Sale of one item of the property could not have satisfied the claims staring against the JDr since there is mortgage also. It was in that context A and B schedule items were sold out by the executing court and that is in accordance with law. After giving due credit to the decretal debt, the DHr had deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.6, 71, 352.00 before the executing court. It was in that context A and B schedule items were sold out by the executing court and that is in accordance with law. After giving due credit to the decretal debt, the DHr had deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.6, 71, 352.00 before the executing court. The amount due to the mortgagee was only Rs.6, 13, 796.00. Therefore, the amount lying in deposit is more than the amount that is due and JDr is not entitled to make any claim about prejudice to the mortgagee for non-mentioning of mortgage encumbrance in the sale proclamations. Even after a decade, the litigation between the parties is still continuing because of the attitude of JDr. There are no grounds to disturb the impugned order which is in accordance with law. 9. Having considered the facts on record and the rival submissions and the law cited before this court by the learned counsels on both sides, the following aspects are required to be stated: Desh Bandhu Gupta V. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 SCC 131 . (Cited by learned counsel for revision petitioner). That was a case where the executing court did not serve any notice to JDr either under Order XXI Rule 54 or under Order XXI Rule 66 of the CPC. The executing court did not make sale proclamations. The executing court did not issue notice to JDr for settling the terms of proclamation of sale. The sale proclamation omitted to mention the place or time at which the sale was to be conducted. The sale proclamation was not published in the locality. It was with such substantial violations of the statute, the executing court went ahead with the sale of the property. It is in that context, their Lordships had laid the law as to when Sec. 47 of the CPC operates and as to when Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC operates. Paragraph No.17 is relevant for noting the ratio and the law and the same reads as below: "Under Sec. 47 all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree should be determined by the Executing Court alone. The pre-sale illegalities committed in the execution are amenable to the remedy under Sec. 47. Postsale illegalities or irregularities causing substantial injury to the judgment-debtor are covered under Order XXI Rule 90. The pre-sale illegalities committed in the execution are amenable to the remedy under Sec. 47. Postsale illegalities or irregularities causing substantial injury to the judgment-debtor are covered under Order XXI Rule 90. Sub-rule (1) thereof covers the field of material irregularities or fraud in publicity or conducting the sale. Sub-rule (2) enjoins proof thereof and the court should find that by reason thereof the applicant sustained substantial injury. The total absence of drawing up of the proclamation of sale and settlement of its term by judicial application of mind renders the sale a nullity being void. It is covered by Sec. 47. The non-application of mind whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree debt is a material irregularity doing substantial injury to the appellant attracting Order XXI Rule 90. In either case the sale is liable to be set aside. It is true that there is distinction between mere irregularity and material irregularities and the sale is not liable to be set aside on proof of mere irregularity. It must be material irregularity and the court must be satisfied that on account thereof substantial injury was sustained by the appellant. The sale of 550 Sq.yards for recovery of a paltry sum of Rs.7, 780.0033 paise, without selling a portion thereof, caused substantial injury to the appellant." That was a case where the decree holder got the property evaluated and it was found to be Rs.3, 33, 333.00. However, in the execution proceedings, the very DHr showed the value of the property at Rs.1, 00, 000.00. The amount due under the decree was Rs.7, 780.0033 paise. The property that was sold was 500 Sq.yards. It was in such circumstances noticing all the irregularities and finding as to what amounted to material irregularities causing substantial injury to the JDr, their Lordships decided the case before them. 10. In the case at hand, it was not a ground to urge by the JDr that there was no notice about attachment, no notice about settlement of terms or absence of enough publicity by way of tom-tom and paper publication. The grounds urged are that the mortgage was not notified in the sale proclamation and that more property was sold out as sale of one item could have satisfied the decree. These submissions do not merit consideration. The decretal debt was at Rs.3, 38, 603.00. The grounds urged are that the mortgage was not notified in the sale proclamation and that more property was sold out as sale of one item could have satisfied the decree. These submissions do not merit consideration. The decretal debt was at Rs.3, 38, 603.00. Mortgage debt is at Rs.6, 13, 796.00. Thus, nearing Rs.10, 00, 000.00 was the amount that was due by the JDr. He neither paid to the mortgage creditor nor paid to the decree holder in this case. He does not oblige directions in either of the decrees. The mortgage decree holder did not complain about failure of the executing court in not mentioning this mortgage encumbrance but JDr claims irregularity. In the given facts and circumstances, since the balance sale consideration lying with the executing court would still satisfy the outstanding mortgage decree debt, the omission on part of the executing court in not mentioning mortgage encumbrance cannot be considered as a material irregularity causing substantial injustice to this JDr. Even according to JDr, either A Schedule or B Scheule property alone is worth at or about Rs.10, 00, 000.00. In such an event his claim that only one of the items could have been sold, in the given facts, cannot be sustained. In the cited ruling, their Lordships have laid down that non-application of mind where the sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree debt is a material irregularity doing substantial injury to the JDr and that shall fall for consideration under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. It is in that context, the executing court had recorded that since the JDr filed application to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC, he was obliged to make a deposit under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC which he failed. The grounds urged in this revision do not indicate that there was no direction to the JDr or no notice was given to him asking him to make deposit of the sale price so as to entertain his application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. In the absence of any such necessary averments, this court shall consider that the executing court must have informed the JDr. It seems, to overcome that only JDr cited Sec. 47 of the CPC also in his application for setting aside sale. In the absence of any such necessary averments, this court shall consider that the executing court must have informed the JDr. It seems, to overcome that only JDr cited Sec. 47 of the CPC also in his application for setting aside sale. The irregularity mentioned, as per the cited ruling, does not fall under Sec. 47 CPC and it falls only within the ambit of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. Therefore, JDr ought to have deposited the amount in terms of Order XXI Rule 89 CPC which he did not. Therefore, the executing court was right in dismissing his petition. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner cited Tamma Venkata Pardhasaradhi V. Tamma Ramachandra Rao, AIR 1972 (AP) 223 . Paragraph No.9 is relevant and it reads as below: "When a person, feeling aggrieved by a sale impugns it on grounds stated in Rule 90, he is bound by the requirements and implications of that Rule. For the purpose of finding out whether a particular application comes under Rule 90 or Sec. 47, CPC, the substance of the application must be considered. And if that substance is that there were irregularities or illegalities in publishing or conducting the sale, then the application must be treated as one under Rule 90. If, on the other hand, the grounds alleged are either anterior or subsequent to the publishing or conducting the sale, it is outside the purview of Rule 90 and will come within the ambit of Sec. 47, CPC. This distinction between two provisions has also been pointed out by the Madras High Court in Seshagiri Ayyar V. Valambal Ammal, AIR 1952 Mad 377 and this court in Satyanarayanamurty V. Bhavanarayana, AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 185 (FB). Since the appellant's petition alleges irregularities and illegalities in publishing and conducting the sale, it is one coming within the scope of Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC, and must, therefore, satisfy all its requirements." 12. The Division Bench of this Court had also stated that a person feeling aggrieved by sale impugns it on grounds stated in Rule 90 is bound by the requirements and implications of that rule. The Division Bench of this Court had also stated that a person feeling aggrieved by sale impugns it on grounds stated in Rule 90 is bound by the requirements and implications of that rule. It was also laid down that direction for deposit is discretionary on part of the executing court as it could decline to issue such notice in cases of mortgage sales and it was also held that the security deposit had to be ordered and without there being a notice and order, it is not possible to contend failure of compliance. This ruling does not assist the revision petitioner for want of necessary pleadings about absence of notice to him calling him for making security deposit contemplated under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC. 13. On the question of maintainability of this revision under article 227 of the Constitution of India, revision petitioner cited K. Siva Ramakrishna Prasad V. M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., 2019 1 ALT 693 (AP). and Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Sciences V. M/s. Unity Infra Projects Ltd., 2019 (1) ALT 471 DB (AP). In both the cases, the question was whether an order of attachment passed by the executing court under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC could be challenged under Sec. 115 CPC by way of revision before this court. This court ruled that an order passed under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC is only a step-in aid to proceed further for realization of the debt and therefore it is interlocutory in nature and against such interlocutory orders, revision under Sec. 115 CPC is not maintainable. This ruling does not answer the question that is raised in the case at hand. The question raised here is whether an order passed allowing or disallowing the prayer to set aside the sale is an order that is appealable or is an order that can be challenged under Article 227 of the constitution of India. Be it noted, the application that is to be filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC stood determined by an order passed under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. An order passed for setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale is the one that is covered under Order XLI Rule 1(J) CPC. Be it noted, the application that is to be filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC stood determined by an order passed under Order XXI Rule 92 CPC. An order passed for setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale is the one that is covered under Order XLI Rule 1(J) CPC. Nearly two years after the sale was done, this revision is filed and the revision does not indicate any reasons indicating the cause of such delay. At this length of time after the follow up action was already initiated and orders by the executing court, this court under article 227 of the constitution of India does not find it fit to grant any relief. Both on facts and law, the revision petitioner fails. Order impugns stands confirmed. 14. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, order dtd. 13/8/2019 in E.A.No.223 of 2019 in E.P.No.114 of 2014 in O.S.No.494 of 2012 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.