( 1 ) THE judgment-debtors in E. P. No. 164 of 2000 in O. S. No. 815 of 1996 on the file of the Court of i Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, are the petitioners. They challenge the docket order dated 27-8-2004, through which, the executing Court confirmed the sale.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount from the petitioners. He obtained attachment, under order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. , in relation to an item of immovable property belonging to the petitioners, before judgment. The suit was decreed on 22-3-1999, and the decree became final.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed E. P. No. 164 of 2000 for execution of the decree. Since the property was already under attachment, sale notification was published and auction was held on 26-7-2004. The respondent participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/ -. The Executing Court confirmed the sale through the order under revision.

( 4 ) SRI M Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the limitation Act (for short the Act ) prescribes 60 days time for filing an application to set aside the sale in execution, and without waiting for the expiry of 60 days from the date of auction, the Executing court confirmed the sale, almost within one month, he submits that confirmation of sale is a step to be taken under Rule 92 of order 21 C. P. C. , only when no application under Rules 89, 90 or 91 was filed, or, the applications so filed was disallowed. He contends that, by confirming the sale before expiry of the period of limitation, the Executing Court had rendered the right of the petitioner under Rules 89, 90 and 91, nugatory.

( 5 ) SRI P. Ganga Kami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the C. R. P. , is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners did not move the Executing Court for necessary relief. He contends that the petitioners could have moved the application before the Executing Court in accordance with the relevant provisions, and that there is nothing in Order 21 C. P. C. , which precludes an Executing Court from confirming the sale before the expiry of 60 days from the date of auction.

( 6 ) THIS revision presents an important situation and question. The decree against the petitioners became final, and an item of immovable property stood attached during the pendency of the suit. The petitioners permitted the decree to become final. To the extent the property was notified for sale, there did not exist much of a controversy. The auction was held on 26-7-2004. The respondent obtained permission of the Court under Rule 72 of order 21 C. P. C. , and participated in the sale. He emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/ -. The Executing Court confirmed the sale in favour of the respondent through its docket order dated 27-8-2004. This order is passed under Rule 92 of order 21 C. P. C. It is beneficial to extract rule 92 of Order 21. "sale when to become absolute or be set aside. (1) Where no application is made under rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute: provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection. to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such application is made and allowed, and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale, [or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document