ORDER : These Civil Revision Petitions arising out of Orders passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2014 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.16 of 2014, dated 27.02.2015 which preferred against Orders passed in petitions filed by the petitioner in EA No.195 of 2009 and EA No.196 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, dated 31.10.2014. Since the question of law and contents to be dealt with in both the Civil Revision Petitions are similar, can be disposed of by a Common Order. 2. The CRP No.2614 of 2015 has been filed against the Common Order and decree passed in EA No.196 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 31.10.2014 which confirmed in CMA No.16 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The CRP No.2536 of 2015 has been filed against the Common Order and decree passed in EA No.195 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 31.10.2014 which confirmed in CMA No.15 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. 3. The respondent/Decree holder obtained money decree against the petitioner in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 16.07.2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. After obtaining the decree, the respondent filed EP No.238 of 2007 for sale of immovable property of petitioner, which is an agricultural land, to an extent of Ac.5.05 cents, wherein the sale was conducted on 12.08.2008, and confirmed on 20.10.2008 and sale certificate was issued on 20.10.2008, and the EP schedule property delivered to the respondent on 09.03.2009. Then, on 06.04.2009 the revision petitioner has filed EA No.195 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte Order passed in Execution Petition, dated 26.10.2007 and also filed EA No.196 of 2009 under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale, dated 12.08.2008. 4. Before the executing Court, on behalf of the revision petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 9 were examined. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. 5. After hearing both sides, the executing Court, dismissed both the petitions filed by the revision petitioner by Common Order. 4. Before the executing Court, on behalf of the revision petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 9 were examined. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. 5. After hearing both sides, the executing Court, dismissed both the petitions filed by the revision petitioner by Common Order. Challenging the Common Orders passed by the executing Court, the revision petitioner has preferred CMA No.15 of 2014 and CMA No.16 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, wherein the learned appellate Judge has passed separate Orders, confirming the Common Order and decrees, passed by the executing Court by its Order, dated 27.02.2015. 6. The case of the revision petitioner before the executing Court in brief is that on 26.10.2007 the respondent obtained ex parte decree against him, and thereafter filed execution petition, wherein he has not served with notice, and he was set ex parte and he came to know through his wife on 26.03.2009 about obtaining the possession by the respondent, as his wife received the notice, on 11.03.2009 and then he came to know about passing of an ex parte decree in the suit and also ex parte Orders passed against him in the execution petition and then he filed petitions to set aside the ex parte Order in execution petition, dated 26.10.2007 and also filed petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale. The petitioner also stated that in a petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC, that the value of the EP schedule property is worth of Rs.20,00,000/-, but it was purchased by the respondent in Court auction with paltry amount, due to that he prays to set aside the sale. 7. The respondent/Decree holder filed counters before the executing Court in both the petitions, filed by the revision petitioner with similar averments, stating that these petitions are not maintainable under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC, as the Order is made under Rule 105 of Order XXI of CPC. He submits that the summons have been served to the revision petitioner in the suit and notice is also served in the execution petition and sale was conducted in accordance with law and remained ex parte. He submits that the summons have been served to the revision petitioner in the suit and notice is also served in the execution petition and sale was conducted in accordance with law and remained ex parte. It is the contention of the respondent that he purchased the EP schedule property in Court auction being highest bidder, and thereafter sale certificate was also issued in his favour and he took physical possession of the property, on 26.03.2009, on which date the revision petitioner appeared before the Court to whom the Court informed about delivery proceedings and delivery also recorded on 26.03.2009, but the revision petitioner came up with these petitions with inordinate delay with false allegations, which are not maintainable. He submits that notice has been served to the revision petitioner in all proceedings and he has got knowledge about passing of decree and filing Execution petition, conducting the sale and delivery of possession of EP schedule property to him, but in spite of it he came up with the petitions with false allegations. He prays to dismiss the petitions. 8. Common enquiry has been conducted by the executing Court, wherein the revision petitioner examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 9 were examined. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. 9. After hearing both sides, the executing Court dismissed both the petitions. 10. Aggrieved by the Common Orders passed by the executing Court, the revision petitioner filed two separate Civil Miscellaneous Appeals before the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, which were dismissed by confirming the Orders passed by the executing Court. 11. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed with common grounds. 12. I have heard both sides. 13. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.O.Manoher Reddy mainly submitted that the sale, which conducted by the executing Court without following the procedure laid down under law and no notice is issued as per Form Nos.24, 27 and 28 of CPC. 12. I have heard both sides. 13. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.O.Manoher Reddy mainly submitted that the sale, which conducted by the executing Court without following the procedure laid down under law and no notice is issued as per Form Nos.24, 27 and 28 of CPC. He would further submit that Ex.B5 notice is not as per Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC and attachment was effected, though proper notice not served to the Judgment debtor, and thereafter publication made in paper, which has no wide circulation and property was sold in Court auction on 12.08.2008, which was knocked down by the Decree holder himself for paltry amount, and the very attachment is not as per law and issuing notice and receiving notice by the wife with regard to delivery of property on 11.03.2009 will not cure defect in conducting the sale. He relied on following precedent law. 1) Madala Surya Lakshmana Prasad vs. Kallakuri Pattabhi Rama Swamy and another. 2011 (5) ALD 758 , wherein it is held that when there is no proper service of sale notice in execution of a decree, and when documentary evidence disclosed that market value of the property comes to Rs.33,00,000/-, when property sold for the value exactly furnished by the Court Amin and the Court not followed procedure laid down under law, while conducting the sale, which cannot be sustained in law, which is liable to be set aside. 2) Mahakal Automobiles and another vs. Kishan Swaroop Sharma, (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 113, wherein it is held that before conducting sale of immovable property by a Court, compliance of Order XXI, Rules 54 and 66 of CPC are mandatory, when no notice served on the Judgment debtor under Rule 54 (1-A), no valuation of the property carried out and there was no proper proclamation of sale would be a nullity and all actions taken pursuant thereto liable to be struck down. 3) Damodaran Pillai and others vs. South Indian Bank Limited. 3) Damodaran Pillai and others vs. South Indian Bank Limited. (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 300, wherein it is held that in a petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC for commencement of limitation from the date of knowledge of the Order, which is applicable only where that Order was passed ex-parte under Rule 105 (3) and that too only in case proper notice was not served upon the Judgment debtor and petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act is not maintainable. 4) Desh Bandhu Gupta vs. N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 131, wherein it is held that service of notice under Order XXI, Rules 66 and 54 (1-A) of CPC is mandatory and sale without notice is nullity and Court should apply its mind to the need for furnishing the relevant and material particulars in the sale proclamation and when no proper notice, which renders the sale was void ab-initio. It is also held at para 15 that “the special rule under Rule 90(3) was brought on statute by 1976 Amendment Act. It is like a “caveat emptor” that the Judgment debtor be vigilant and watchful to vindicate presale illegalities or material irregularities. He should not stand by to procrastinate the execution proceedings. If he so does, Rule 90(3) forewarns him that he pays penalty for obduracy and contumacy. Equally it is a reminder that the Court should be strict to comply with the procedural part under Rule 54(1-A) before depriving the Judgment debtor of the remedy under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. If he had notice from Court and acquiesced by taking no action before the date of sale, he would be precluded to assail its legality or correctness thereafter. But in the present case the Judgment debtor had not been served with or given notice at the time of drawing up the proclamation of sale and as a fact no proclamation of sale was drawn up by the executing Court except accepting the ipse dixit of the Decree holder. The procedure adopted by the executing Court bristles with several irregularities touching the jurisdiction of the Court. They are not only material irregularities causing substantial injustice but are in violation of the mandatory requirements of the rules”. 5) Rachabathuni Govinda Rao (died) and others. vs.Golla Tirupathi Venkaiah. The procedure adopted by the executing Court bristles with several irregularities touching the jurisdiction of the Court. They are not only material irregularities causing substantial injustice but are in violation of the mandatory requirements of the rules”. 5) Rachabathuni Govinda Rao (died) and others. vs.Golla Tirupathi Venkaiah. 2020 (3) ALD 417 (AP), wherein it is held that when no notice is served on Judgment debtor, when Decree holder fraudulently obtained orders for substituted service of notice, which has no circulation in Judgment debtor’s area and property worth Rs.4 Crores, purchased by the Decree holder for Rs.90,00,000/-, which is fraud and thereby proceedings in execution petition including sale of property liable to be set aside. He prays to allow the revision petitions. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent/Decree holder Mr.S.Lakshminarayana Reddy would submit that the respondent produced the evidence to show that notice has been served to the revision petitioner in the suit proceedings and also in execution proceedings. He would further submit that the revision petitioner got knowledge about the execution proceedings and delivery of EP schedule property, through his wife and in spite of it, he kept quiet all these days and came up with petitions under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC, instead of filing petition under Order XXI, Rule 89 of CPC, without depositing sale proclamation amount and filed petition beyond period of limitation, which is not maintainable, which rightly dismissed by the Courts below. He relied on following precedent law. 1) Annapurna vs. Mallikarjuna and another., (2014) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 397, wherein it is held that time for making requisite deposit in Court as per Order XXI, Rule 89 of CPC, reiterated as prescribed under Article 127 of Limitation Act, which is 60 days from the date of sale and nondeposit of sale amount within that period would result in dismissal of application. 2) Dadi Jagannadham vs.Jammulu Ramulu and others, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 71, wherein it is also held that limitation for application to deposit sale amount seeking set aside the sale by the Judgment debtor is 60 days under Article 127 of Limitation Act. 3) Harijana Mukeeranna. Vs.B.Thimmothi and others. 2) Dadi Jagannadham vs.Jammulu Ramulu and others, (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 71, wherein it is also held that limitation for application to deposit sale amount seeking set aside the sale by the Judgment debtor is 60 days under Article 127 of Limitation Act. 3) Harijana Mukeeranna. Vs.B.Thimmothi and others. 2013 (5) ALT 179 , wherein it is also held that for setting aside the Court auction sale, the claimant who has an interest in the property, shall deposit the amounts payable under Rule 89 (1)(a) and (b) within 60 days of sale under Rule 92 (2) of Order 21, CPC which is the mandatory requirement and the executing Court has no power to extend the time for depositing the amounts. 4) Penugonda Varalakshmi vs.Nallamala Lakshymi Tayaru and others. 2014 (2) ALD 319 , wherein it is held that as per Order 21, Rule 89 seeking to set aside auction sale, it has to be filed within 60 days as per Article 127 of Limitation Act, but amount deposited belatedly after filing of the revision petition in pursuance of the directions given by the High Court in the revision will not cure, due to that the Judgment debtor is not entitled to any relief. 5) S.V.Ramakrishna vs.R.Subbamma and another. 2001 (5) ALT 657 , wherein it is held that under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC, the sale cannot be set aside merely on the ground of Decree holder and auction purchaser are related to each other unless Judgment debtor establishes that property was sold for a low price and that he suffered substantial injury thereby and when property sold at a price higher than the value fixed by the Court, wherein two more independent persons also participated in the auction sale conducted, sale conducted in a proper way, no grounds to set aside sale. 15. The remaining decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are with regard to deposit of amount along with application filed under Order XXI, Rule 89 of CPC, if amount is not deposited as required under Rule 89 of CPC within 60 days, sale cannot be set aside. He prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 16. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: "Whether the Orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Section 115 of CPC?" 17. He prays to dismiss the revision petitions. 16. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: "Whether the Orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Section 115 of CPC?" 17. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order XXI, Rules 89 and 90 of CPC, which reads as under: “Rule 89. Application to set aside sale on deposit:- (1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree [any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person,] may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in Court,- (a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money, and (b) for payment to the decree-holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree-holder. (2) Where a person applies under rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this rule. (3) Nothing in this rule shall relieve the judgment-debtor from any liability he may be under in respect of costs and interest not covered by the proclamation of sale”. “Rule 90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud:- (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, of the purchaser, or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. (2) No sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it unless, upon the facts proved, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud. (3) No application to set aside a sale under this rule shall be entertained upon any ground which the applicant could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. Explanation—The mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale under this rule”. 18. On perusal of Order XXI, Rule 89, which makes it clear that when property is already sold in Court auction in execution of a decree any person claiming an interest in the property seeks to set aside the sale has to deposit a sum equal to five per cent of purchase money, within 60 days from the date of sale as per Article 127 of Limitation Act and there is another condition as per proviso (2) where a person applies under Rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under Order XXI, Rule 89 of CPC, which shows that deposit of amount by a person, who seeks set aside the sale, is a condition precedent for maintaining his application. In the present case, admittedly the revision petitioner has not deposited amount along with his application and he came up with an application to set aside the ex parte Order in the execution petition under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC and filed petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC. 19. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that no notice has been served to him either in the suit or in the execution proceedings, or sale notice. The another contention of the revision petitioner is that his immovable property, which is an agricultural land, worth Rs.15,00,000/- is sold in Court auction for lesser amount, which is purchased by the respondent. The Judgment debtor also questioned delivery of possession of the property and adduced evidence to show that still he is in possession of the property by examining witnesses, including the Tahsildar to support his contention. The Judgment debtor also questioned delivery of possession of the property and adduced evidence to show that still he is in possession of the property by examining witnesses, including the Tahsildar to support his contention. The executing Court after elaborately discussing the evidence available on record, including the evidence of Tahsildar came to conclusion that proper notice has been served to the petitioner and the EP schedule property was sold for Rs.2,50,000/- and then a sum of Rs.1,91,473/- was set off from the sale amount and remaining amount of Rs.58,527/- was paid by the respondent/Decree holder. 20. The respondent also filed Ex.B1 certified copy of summons served on the petitioner in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 10.06.2007, Ex.B5 certified copy of notice sent to the Judgment debtor, containing service on the Judgment debtor and Ex.B6 served postal acknowledgment of the Judgment debtor. He also filed Ex.B7 valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar to show that the value of the petition schedule immovable property is Rs.42,000/- per acre w.e.f., 01.04.2007 in respect of Sy.No.711 of Gorukallu village of Panyam mandal. Though, the respondent has shown the value of the EP schedule property is Rs.20,000/-, the Amin valued the property as Rs.2,47,500/- and as per Sub-Registrar’s value, it was Rs.2,12,100/-, which published in a paper that the date of sale as 12.08.2008. As discussed supra, the property was sold in Court auction for Rs.2,50,000/-, which is more than the Sub-Registrar’s value, but the revision petitioner produced the valuation certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer to show that the value of the EP schedule property is Rs.15,00,000/-, who is admittedly not competent to issue the same. The respondent also examined the Field Assistant, Process Servers of the Court who served notice on the revision petitioner in the suit stage and also in the execution proceedings stage, which acts they have done in discharging their official duties, which are presumed to be done in right manner. But the revision petitioner failed to prove that Exs.B1, B5 and B6 not contain his signature. 21. But the revision petitioner failed to prove that Exs.B1, B5 and B6 not contain his signature. 21. The executing Court after elaborately discussing the evidence adduced on both sides, came to conclusion that notice has been served in the suit proceedings and also in the execution proceedings, in all stages to the revision petitioner, which confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, which shows that there is concurrent finding of fact with regard to service of notice to the revision petitioner in the proceedings, which cannot be interfered by this Court while invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner, which rendered when no notice is served to the Judgment debtor in Court auction proceedings. But in the present case, the evidence adduced by the respondent/Decree holder shows that notice has been served to the revision petitioner in all the proceedings, including suit stage, due to that the ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. In Desh Bandhu Gupta case referred supra, relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner, the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the Judgment debtor should not stand by to procrastinate the execution proceedings. If he so does, Rule 90(3) forewarns him that he pays penalty for obduracy and contumacy. In the present case, though notice has been served to the revision petitioner in execution proceedings at the time of Rule 54 stage and Rule 66 notice, he failed to contest and not raised any objection with regard to attachment and sale of his immovable property, due to that as per Order XXI, Rule 90(3) of CPC, he is not entitled to seek set aside the sale, which ground he could have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. The revision petitioner also failed to prove that EP schedule property is worth Rs.15,00,000/- and the respondent/ Decree holder able to prove that value of the EP schedule property per acre is Rs.42,000/- w.e.f., 01.04.2007 and he admittedly purchased the property for Rs.2,50,000/- and the land is to an extent of Ac.5.05 cents. The revision petitioner also failed to prove that EP schedule property is worth Rs.15,00,000/- and the respondent/ Decree holder able to prove that value of the EP schedule property per acre is Rs.42,000/- w.e.f., 01.04.2007 and he admittedly purchased the property for Rs.2,50,000/- and the land is to an extent of Ac.5.05 cents. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has knocked down the property for paltry sum, which caused loss to the petitioner/Judgment debtor. 23. In view of discussion in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of an opinion that the Orders passed by the executing Court, which confirmed by the learned appellate Judge are sustainable in law and also on facts. There is no jurisdictional error, which needs interference of this Court while invoking powers under Section 115 of CPC. 24. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any, shall stand closed. Interim Orders if any granted, shall stand vacated.