( 1 ) THE appellant-herein is judgment- debtor. He filed E. A. No. 410/1991 in e. P. 4/1991 (sic. 4/1990) in O. S. 33/1987 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, tadepalligudem under Order 21 Rule 90 cpc to set aside the sale dated 25-11-1991. The Court below after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by both parties came to the conclusion that there are no irregularities or fraud played by the respondents, viz. , the decreeholder and auction purchaser in the auction held on 25-11-1991 and dismissed the said E. A. 410/1991. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the judgment- debtor.

( 2 ) IN this appeal, status quo order was granted on 7-12-1996 for a period of one month and the matter was directed to be posted for orders on 17-1-1997. On 30-1-1997, the status quo order was extended till 7-2-1997. On 2-5-1997, the status quo order was extended till the end of June 1997. On 11-7-1997, the said status quo order was extended till 14-7-1997. On 19-9-1997, the matter was directed to be listed on 24-9-1997 in the motion list. On 20-10-1997, the appeal is directed to be listed for final hearing on 28-11-1997.

( 3 ) ON 10-7-1998, this appeal was dismissed for default. Later, on 26-10-1998, by order in C. M. P. No. 16642 of 1998, the appeal is restored to file.

( 4 ) AGAIN, on 31-12-1998, interim stay was granted for six weeks and the appeal was directed to be listed for orders on 18-1-1999. Subsequently, the status quo order expired, as it was not extended by this Court. Now, the matter came up for hearing before this court.

( 5 ) THE first respondent-herein/decree- holder filed the suit O. S. 95/1987 (sic. 33/1987) on the file of Senior Civil judge, Tadepalligudem against the present appellant for recovery of Rs. 41,246-88 Ps. The suit was decreed on 27-2-1987. In execution of the decree the decreeholder filed E. P. 4/1990 and brought the land of the appellant in an extent of Ac. 2. 15 cents situate at Nidamarru village, West godavari District for sale. In the E. P. , sale has taken place on 25-11-1991 and the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser knocked down the sale, being the highest bidder in the auction. Against the said sale, the present appellant filed E. A. 410/1991 praying to set aside the sale, on the ground that the properties put to sale are worth more than two lakh rupees and the 2nd respondent knocked away the same at a substantially lower amount of Rs. 69,000. 00 and that the sale is a collusive and nominal one and that with the connivance of the other participants the 2nd respondent has knocked away the property at a lower rate.

( 6 ) IT is the case of appellant in the E. A. that the upset price of Rs. 60,000/- fixed by the Court below is very low when compared to the market value of the property and the lower Court also failed to see that the details and nature of property are not mentioned/printed in the paper publication Ex. A-2. According to the appellant, the paper in which Ex. A-2 publication was made is not a newspaper of wide circulation in the area and so Ex. A-2 cannot be considered as a daily newspaper. On the above grounds, the appellant filed e. A. 410/1991 to set aside the sale.

( 7 ) THE decreeholder/1st respondent filed counter in E. A. 410/1991 denying the allegations of the appellant in the E. A. It is contended that there is no material irregularity in proclamation of sale and denied that the sale had taken place after 5 p. m. as alleged by the appellant. It is stated that the sale was held, during the working hours of the Court, at 3 p. m. immediately after lunch.

( 8 ) THE auction-purchaser/2nd respondent filed counter in E. A. 410/1991 denying the allegations of the appellant in the E. A, contending that his bid is for rs. 69,000/- and he deposited one-third thereof immediately on 25-11-1991. It is contended that no irregularities took place in publishing the sale notice and in conducting the sale by the Court.

( 9 ) BASING on the said contentions, the cou