1. This Appeal is preferred by Judgment Debtor No.4 whose application to set aside the sale under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was dismissed by the executing Court.

2. The said application E.A.No.498 of 2002 was moved to set aside the sale held on 17.06.2002 by impleading the decree holder alone as a party to the application. Undoubtedly, the auction purchaser who has purchased the property and who deposited the sale consideration was not impleaded to E.A.No.498 of 2002. The executing Court has rightly noticed the same as a fundamental defect amounting to non-joinder of necessary party and the same is taken as one of the reasons for rejection of E.A.No.498 of 2002.

3. In order to get over the said defect, the C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003 is filed impleading the said auction purchaser as a proposed party-respondent No.2 in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The application for impleadment in C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003, though coming up along with the C.M.A., was not ordered in the C.M.A. However, on the last date of hearing and as on today when the C.M.A. is heard, Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel representing the auction purchaser, was heard and as such the C.M.P.No.30119 of 2003 deserves to be ordered and is, accordingly, ordered.

4. So far as merits of the C.M.A. are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale is vitiated on more than one ground and according to him, the sale price fetched at the auction namely Rs.2,45,000/-is far below the official market value of the property, which is shown as Rs.10,00,000/- as per Ex.A7-Valuation Certificate itself. The second ground raised is that the E.P. schedule property consists of seven different door numbers and the sale of all the seven door numbers was not necessary keeping in view that the decretal amount was about Rs.2,52,533/-as on the date of E.P. The further contention raised by the learned counsel is with regard to publication of the sale notice, which according to him is in an obscure newspaper which has hardly any circulation. All the said grounds were sought to be supported by placing reliance upon decisions of this Court in 1) J.MallaReddy v. Smt.I.Shantamma (2009(5) ALT 493 (DB), 2) ChirravuriVeerabhadra Rao v. State Bank of India (2010(1) ALT 770)and 3) VemulaVenkateswarlu v. Vakati Prabhakara Reddy (2011(1) ALT 156).

5. I have considered all the said contentions. But I regret my inability to accept any of the said grounds for the reasons as mentioned below.

6. It is born out by the record that when the sale proclamation was settled under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC notices to Judgment Debtor including the petitioner herein (Judgment Debtor No.4) were served and the petitioner was set ex parte. According to the petitioner, the said notice was not served on her but on her sons and based on that ground she filed application E.A.No.395 of 2002 seeking to set aside the said order setting her ex parte. That application, however, was dismissed by the executing court by order, dated 14.06.2002, and the same was questioned by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2551 of 2002 before this Court. The said revision petition, however, was also dismissed confirming the orders of the executing court by holding that the petitioner and her sons (Judgment Debtor Nos.1 to 3) were duly served with the notice of proclamation of sale and all of them, being fully aware, have not raised any objection. The said revision petition was, accordingly, dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application as permissible under law. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present E.A.No.498 of 2002 to set aside the sale. Though the other grounds on which the sale is sought to be set aside were considered by the executing court, the ground so far as non-service of notice to the petitioner, as alleged, at the time of settlement of sale proclamation, stands concluded against the petitioner by order in C.R.P.No.2551 of 2002, referred to above.

7. So far as the other grounds a