This civil revision petition presents an occasion to know the subtle distinction between the rights of the judgment debtor in a suit for foreclosure of mortgage, on the one hand, and ordinary money suit, on the other.

2. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.83 of 2005 against the petitioner, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, for redemption of mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court, on 08.06.2003. It appears that no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree. The respondent filed I.A.No.183 of 2006, for final decree and the same was allowed, on 05.01.2007. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount, the respondent filed E.P.No.76 of 2007, for sale of the mortgaged property, being a house with ground and first floors; in Nandyal Town.

3. Though it is not immediately relevant, it is necessary to mention that the daughter of the petitioner filed O.S.No.22 of 2007 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Nandyal for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06.04.2001, in respect of the same property. That, however, does not appear to have fructified.

4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1156 of 2007, with a prayer to adjourn the sale proceedings stating that she intends to settle the matter within a period of 20 days. The I.A. was dismissed on 18.12.2007. The E.P. schedule property was brought to sale on 19.12.2007 and the 2nd respondent had emerged as the highest bidder; for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1163 of 2007, under Rule 90 of Order 21 C.P.C., with a prayer to set aside the sale. Simultaneously, the executing Court posted the matter for confirmation of sale. E.A.No.1163 of 2007 was dismissed by the Executing Court on 23.06.2010 and as a result, the same was confirmed. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.7 of 2010 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appeal was dismissed on 30.07.2010. Hence, this revision.

5. Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that material irregularity had crept into the sale, since the value of the property mentioned by the petitioner herein was not reflected in the proclamation of the sale or the notification. He contends that stipulation of the value furnished by a judgment debtor, in the sale proclamation is mandatory under Rule 66 of Order 21 C.P.C., as it applies to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He submits that the executing Court has chosen to permit a notification to be published in a totally unknown newspaper, hardly with any circulation and has conducted the sale in the Court premises. Learned counsel further submits that his client has since deposited the entire decretal amount, in compliance with the interim direction issued by this Court on 30.08.2010, and the same needs to be treated as a step under Rule 5 of Order 34 C.P.C. and in that view of the matter, the sale must be set aside.

6. Sri Laxminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that each and every step in the execution was taken strictly in accordance with law, and every objection raised by the petitioner was not only taken into account, but necessary corrections were also ordered. They contend that the value of the property, furnished by the petitioner, as evidenced through a certificate issued by the Registering Authority, which is marked as Ex.B.1, was entered in the sale proclamation. They submit that the petitioner did not file an application under Rule 89 of Order 21 C.P.C., and subsequent deposit made by him, particularly in a revision, cannot be taken into account, for setting aside the sale. Learned counsel further contend that a revision cannot be said to be continuation of the execution proceedings to enable the petitioner to claim the benefit under the relevant rules of Order 34 C.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the parties have relied upon precedents in support of