ORDER Ninala Jayasurya, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. These three Revision Petitions arise out of the Orders passed by the Executing Court with reference to the Decree dated 26.07.2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said suit was filed by one Smt.Devaram Rajeswaramma against the petitioner herein, the sole defendant. The 2nd respondent herein is the auction purchaser. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Suit and the details of these Revision Petitions and the chronological events that led to passing of the orders under challenge may be set out hereunder. 4. C.R.P.No.959 of 2020 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order of dismissal dated 29.05.2020 in I.A.No.201 of 2018 filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the auction conducted on 22.10.2018 on the ground of procedural irregularities. 5. C.R.P.No.2621 of 2023 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order in unnumbered E.A., filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the auction sale on deposit of the decretal amount. 6. C.R.P.No.2618 of 2023 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order dated 19.09.2023 in E.A.No.235 of 2023 filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 92 for confirmation of the Sale Dated 22.10.2018. 7. Apart from the above Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner/ Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 against the Order of dismissal dated 04.02.2019 in I.A.No.908 of 2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte Decree dated 26.07.2016. 8. O.S.No.175 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on the foot of the Promissory notes stated to have been executed by the defendant / the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed on 26.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.12,32,938/- as the defendant remained ex parte. 8. O.S.No.175 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on the foot of the Promissory notes stated to have been executed by the defendant / the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed on 26.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.12,32,938/- as the defendant remained ex parte. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the defendant filed an application to set aside the same along with an application I.A.No.908 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Seeking execution of the decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.261 of 2016 and the same was allowed and an auction was conducted on 22.10.2018, wherein the mother of the decree holder / respondent No.2 herein purchased the suit schedule property in the public auction. The Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.201 of 2018 under Order 21 Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said Sale dated 22.10.2018. On 12.12.2018, I.A.No.908 of 2017 filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor seeking to condone the delay in filing the set aside petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 and by an Order dated 01.03.2019 interim stay of operation of the Decree dated 26.07.2016 was granted, on condition of depositing half of the suit amount to the credit of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nellore within three months from the date of Order, with a default clause. 9. Pursuant to the above said interim order, the petitioner deposited Rs.5,25,000/- i.e., half of the promissory note amount instead of half of the suit amount. The Decree holder raised an objection that the order of High Court was not complied with in toto and in those circumstances, the petitioner filed E.A.No.316 of 2019 before the Executing Court seeking permission to deposit the balance amount. The said I.A., was dismissed by an order dated 28.01.2020 inter alia that the petition is not maintainable as the Executing Court cannot modify the order of the High Court. Then, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 seeking extension of time for depositing the balance amount. 10. On 29.05.2020, the Executing Court dismissed E.A.No.201 of 2018 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.959 of 2020. Then, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 seeking extension of time for depositing the balance amount. 10. On 29.05.2020, the Executing Court dismissed E.A.No.201 of 2018 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.959 of 2020. On 27.07.2020, a learned Judge of the High Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.261 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018 subject to the condition of the Judgment Debtor depositing half of the E.P.amount within four weeks from the date of the said order, with an observation that the amount deposited pursuant to the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 shall be given credit to and that if the order is not complied within a period of four (4) weeks, the interim order automatically stands vacated. Thereafter, on 05.05.2023, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor withdrew C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 and accordingly the same was dismissed. 11. Then on 22.07.2023, the auction purchaser filed E.A.No.235 of 2023 under Order 21 Rule 92 of Code of Civil Procedure r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to confirm the sale of E.P.Schedule Property. While the said application is pending, the petitioner / J.Dr., deposited an amount of Rs.16,98,992/- towards decretal amount including interest on 26.07.2023 and filed an application in E.A.No.___of 2023 in E.P.No.261 of 2016 under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C. The Executing Court by an Order dated 19.09.2023 dismissed the said unnumbered E.A.No.___of 2023 that it is not maintainable and in view of the said order of dismissal, the Executing Court allowed E.A.No.235 of 2023 filed by the auction purchasers vide Order dated 19.09.2023. 12. Aggrieved by the Orders dated 19.09.2023 in dismissing the unnumbered E.A., filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of C.P.C., the petitioner/ Judgment Debtor instituted C.R.P.No.2621 of 2023. He also filed C.R.P.No.2618 of 2023 aggrieved by the Order of the Executing Court in allowing E.A.No.235 of 2023 referred to above. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner / Judgment Debtor made submissions inter alia that the orders under challenge passed by the Executing Court in C.R.P.No.2618 and 2621 of 2023 are contrary to Law and unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner / Judgment Debtor made submissions inter alia that the orders under challenge passed by the Executing Court in C.R.P.No.2618 and 2621 of 2023 are contrary to Law and unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. She submits that the learned Executing Court committed a gross error in proceeding in the matters (E.A.Nos._____ of 2023 and E.A.No.235 of 2023) when the interim order granted in C.R.P.No.959 of 2020 staying further proceedings in E.P.No.261 of 2016 is in force. She submits that as interim orders in the said C.R.P., were granted on 27.07.2020, subject to the condition of depositing half of the decretal amount after giving credit to the amount which was already deposited (as per interim order dated 01.03.2019 in C.R.P.No.228 of 2019), the petitioner / Judgment Debtor deposited the differential amount on 24.08.2020. Thus the interim orders dated 27.07.2020 were complied with and there is no dispute with regard to the same. 14. She submits that the CRP Nos. 2618 and 2621 of 2023 are liable to be allowed as the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge are in violation of orders of stay and illegal. 15. So far as CRP No.959 of 2020 is concerned, the learned counsel made elaborate submissions to the effect that the order passed by the learned Executing Court in dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC seeking to set aside the sale is contrary to law, not valid and liable to be set aside the sale. 16. She submits that the Executing Court failed to appreciate that the subject matter property is worth about Rs.1 crore and the same was auctioned at lesser rate as the Decree Holder played fraud in the process of auction and got the property purchased in the name of his mother / the 2nd respondent. She submits that as the auction purchaser is none other than the natural mother of the Decree Holder, the sale is vitiated by material irregularity and fraud. The learned counsel in support of her submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Othayath Lekshmy Amma v. Nellachink Uniyil Govindan Nair, 1990 CJ (SC) 438 ii) Chinnamal v. Arumugham, 1990 CJ (SC) 115 iii) Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh etc., (1994) 1 SCC 131 17. The learned counsel in support of her submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Othayath Lekshmy Amma v. Nellachink Uniyil Govindan Nair, 1990 CJ (SC) 438 ii) Chinnamal v. Arumugham, 1990 CJ (SC) 115 iii) Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L.Anand & Rajinder Singh etc., (1994) 1 SCC 131 17. On the other hand, while supporting the orders passed by the learned Executing Court which are under challenge in CRP No.2618 and 2621 of 2023, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions. Referring to the various factual aspects, which are set out in detail in the counter affidavit, she submits that the present Revision petitions have been filed only with a view to protract the litigation and there are no merits in the same. She submits that against the orders passed in E.A.No.235 of 2023 under Order 21 Rule 92 of CPC, confirming the sale dated 22.10.2018, an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (j) of CPC and as such the CRP No.2618 of 2023 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on that ground. She also submitted that the learned Executing Court after examining the matter and by assigning cogent reasons passed orders in E.As., filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of depositing entire decretal amount and the auction purchaser to confirm the sale, respectively and the same warrants no interference by this Court. She also submitted that in fact the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the learned Judge reported in Nerella China Venkata Subba Rao v. Gunda Anka Rao, (2015) 5 ALT 311 Contending that there is no material irregularity or fraud as alleged by the petitioner and the auction has been conducted strictly in accordance with law and after considering the matter in the right perspective the learned executing Court had rightly passed the orders under challenge in CRP Nos.959 of 2020; 2618 and 2621 of 2023, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the said Civil Revision Petitions. 18. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Though elaborate submissions have been made on both sides, this Court deems it not necessary to deal with the same in extenso, more particularly with reference to the various factual aspects. 18. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. Though elaborate submissions have been made on both sides, this Court deems it not necessary to deal with the same in extenso, more particularly with reference to the various factual aspects. Suffice to state that as noted above, the petitioner field CRP No.959 of 2020 against the orders of dismissal in I.A.No.201 of 2018 filed under order 21 Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the auction dated 22.10.2018 on the ground of material irregularity and fraud. But against the order in an application to set aside the Court sale / auction in execution of decree, an appeal lies. The law in this regard is well settled. 19. In Sheikh Mastan v. Gubba Atchayya, AIR 1959 AP 667 , a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dealt with the aspect of the remedy available to the aggrieved party against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. It is profitable to extract the relevant portion of the decision, for ready reference: '2....... The pertinent question for decision is whether an order dismissing a petition under O. XXI, R. 90 of the CPC consequent upon the failure to comply with the direction contained in the proviso to that rule, comes within the ambit of O. XLIII, R. 1(j) of the CPC which provides: 'An appeal shall lie from (j): an order under R. 72 or R. 92 of O. XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale;' 3. The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of the words 'refusing to set aside a sale'. There is no separate provision in the Civil Procedure Code conferring right of appeal upon an aggrieved party whose petition was dismissed, in circumstances similar to those as in the present case. It is relevant to note that the proviso which enables the Court to demand the deposit of money into Court before admitting the petition was introduced in October 1936, i.e., long after O. XLIII, R. 1 was enacted. It is, therefore, clear that at the time when that rule was framed, such a differentiation could not have been in contemplation. That apart, whatever might be the reason for the dismissal of the petition, there can be little doubt that it amounts to a refusal to set aside a sale.' 20. It is, therefore, clear that at the time when that rule was framed, such a differentiation could not have been in contemplation. That apart, whatever might be the reason for the dismissal of the petition, there can be little doubt that it amounts to a refusal to set aside a sale.' 20. Referring to the above decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench also the decisions in Marudamuthu Mudaliar v N.K. Venkatrama Ayya, AIR 1939 Madras 482 (Para 3); Kedar Nath v Purushottam Das Banarsi Das, AIR 1959 AP 667 and Mrs. Anjalina D'Souza v The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd., AIR 1995 Karnataka 30 (Para 6) the learned Judge in Smt. N. Devamma v Smt. M.Akkamma and Ors., (2005) 4 ALT 73 held that against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC an appeal alone is maintainable. In the said decision, the learned Judge also referred to the decision of Madras High Court in V.A.Narayana Raja v O.R.M. MSV M. Meyappa Chittiar, AIR 1975 Madras 36 wherein it is, inter alia, held as follows: 'A reading of this provision clearly shows that what is required for an appeal being preferred against a rejection of an application under sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of Order 21. Civil P.C. is that the main application referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 104 of Order 21, Civil P.C. is an appealable order. Undoubtedly an order of dismissal of an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. is an appealable one order under Order 43, Rule 1(j). Therefore, the appellant is certainly entitled to file an appeal as against the dismissal of E.A. 716 of 1969, which was filed under Order 21, Rule 105, Civil P.C. Nowhere it is stated in Order 43, Rule 1((jj) that where an application under Rule 105 had been dismissed for default, it was not open to the aggrieved party to file an appeal. In such circumstances, the second objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is also clearly untenable. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the order rejecting I.A. No. II filed by the petitioner under Rule 90 of Order XXI, C.P.C. must be considered to be an order made under Rule 92 of Order XXI, C.P.C. from which an appeal shall lie under Order XLIII, Rule 1(j), C.P.C. The revision petition is therefore not maintainable.' 21. In view of the above stated legal position, this Court is inclined to hold that the Civil Revision Petition No.959 of 2020 is not maintainable. 22. In so far as CRP No.2621 and 2618 of 2023 are concerned, the Executing Court passed orders on 19.09.2023 in unnumbered E.A. filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC to set aside the auction sale on deposit of decretal amount and E.A.No.235 of 2023 filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 92 for confirmation of the sale respectively. While this court agree with the contention that against the order in E.A.No.235 of 2023, an appeal has to be preferred, which is equally applicable to the order passed in the unnumbered E.A., deems it appropriate to state here that the above said EAs were filed by the Judgment Debtor and the Auction Purchaser during the pendency of CRP No.959 of 2020, wherein on 27.07.2020, a conditional interim order was passed and as noted from the orders passed by the learned Executing Court, it would appear that on 24.08.2020 the petitioner/Judgment Debtor deposited the balance amount in the Court below and thus the said orders dated 27.07.2020 continue to be in operation. 23. In such circumstances i.e., when the order of this Court in CRP No.959 of 2020 is in force, the learned Executing Court is not expected to take up the EAs referred to above for consideration. It appears that the learned Executing Court is under an impression that as CRP No.228 of 2019 was withdrawn, the above said two EAs could as well be disposed of, overlooking the crucial aspect that CRP No.959 of 2020 is pending, wherein there is a stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.261 of 2016. Therefore, the orders, as passed by the learned Executing Court disposing of the above said two EAs vide order dated 19.09.2023, in the teeth of the interim stay of all further proceedings in the Execution Proceedings, is a nullity, not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside on that ground. As to how the learned Executing Court had proceeded those in EAs, despite the interim stay orders of this Court is a matter for examination. As to how the learned Executing Court had proceeded those in EAs, despite the interim stay orders of this Court is a matter for examination. Though this Court is not oblivious to the fact that CRP No.959 of 2020 was filed during the Covid-19, and at that point of time there was disruption of regular Court work, by filing the above two EAs., both sides invited the orders dated 19.09.2023. Whatever the reason might be and as per the settled principles of Law, the order of the Court shall prejudice none (Actus curiae neminem gravabit). 24. Therefore, irrespective of the maintainability of CRP No.959 of 2020, when the orders of this Court are in force, the learned Executing Court committed an error in considering and disposing of unnumbered E.A.___ of 2023 and E.A.No.235 of 2023 and the orders dated 19.09.2023, which are challenged in CRP No.2621 and 2618 of 2023 are therefore null and void. Therefore, the same are set aside on that ground without going into the merits of the matter. 25. Accordingly, the CRPs are disposed of. Office is directed to return the papers including the certified copies to the petitioner to pursue the remedies before the appropriate courts, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.