This revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in E.A.No.75 of 2009 in E.P.No.59 of 2009 in O.S.No.156 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hujurnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the Execution Application filed by the Judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and, consequently, set aside the sale held on 9.3.2005 in E.P.No.59 of 2005.

The 1st respondent herein is the Judgment debtor and the 2nd respondent is the decree holder in E.P.59 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hujurnagar. The decree holder brought the properties of the judgment debtor to sale. Auction of the properties has been held on 9.3.2005. The petitioner herein is the auction purchaser. He deposited 1/3rd of the amount on the date of auction, and subsequently deposited the 3/4th of the auction amount on 21.3.2005. While so, the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.75 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 90 read with Section 151 C.P.C to set aside the sale conducted on 9.3.2005 on the ground of material irregularities. Initially, the Executing Court allowed the application on the ground that the auction purchaser failed to deposit stamp duty amount within the stipulated period by order dated 29.4.2008. The auction purchaser filed C.R.P.No.1730 of 2009 assailing the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in E.A.No.29 of 2005 in E.P No.37 of 2004 in O.S.No.156 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The revision came to be allowed setting aside the order dated 29.4.2008 remanding the matter back to the Executing Court with a direction to dispose of the E.A., after giving opportunity to both the parties, within a period of two weeks, by order dated 15.7.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer to Para Nos.6 and 7 of the order passed in C.R.P.No.1730 of 2009, which reads as hereunder:-

“On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same on the ground that it is mandatory on the part of the auction purchaser to deposit the nonjudicial stamps within the stipulated time. Therefore, if the non-judicial stamps have not been filed within the time, the sale is illegal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court is not put to the auction purchaser inasmuch as no such plea is taken by the judgment debtor in his application to set aside the sale. No doubt that executing court can look into the relevant provisions for the purpose of knowing whether the sale amount has been within the time or not, and whether the non-judicial stamps have been filed with a view to prepare sale certificate within time or not, but at the same time the Court should have given an opportunity to the auction purchaser to plead his case and that opportunity was not given to the auction purchaser. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is liable for remittance to the trial Court.”

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 29-4-2008 passed in E.A No.29 of 2005 in O.S.No.156 of 2000 by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, Nalgonda District. However, the matter is remitted to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the above E.A., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity to both parties with reference to non-deposit of non-judicial stamps. No costs.”

The Executing Court, on remand, heard the counsel appearing for the parties afresh and proceeded to allow the application filed by the judgment debtor and set aside the sale held on 9.3.2005, by an order dated 24.11.2009. Hence this revision by the auction purchaser.

Notice before admission came to be ordered on 12.4.2010. The 1st respondent/judgment debtor entered appearance through a counsel.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/auction purchaser submits that non-deposit of stamp duty does not constitute a material irregularit