This revision petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. questioning the order dated 30.11.2015 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2013 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2011 in E.A.No.264 of 2010 in E.P.No.330 of 2007 in O.S.No.214 of 1992 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.

2. The petitioners filed affidavit raising only one contention i.e. posting the matter for filing sale papers for test and sale of E.P. schedule property without attachment, but raised different contentions during hearing before the executing Court. In view of the various contentions raised during hearing, it is appropriate to extract the allegations made in the affidavit for better appreciation: I am the petitioner No.2 herein and the J.Dr.No.2 in the above said E.P. The respondent No.1 filed the above E.P. against me and one K.Lakshmi Devamma to sale the E.P., schedule property for realization of E.P. amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. The respondent No.1 herein brought the E.P. schedule property for sale. The D.Hr has not attached the E.P. schedule property and directly posted the matter for test and sale the E.P. schedule property under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. On 16.08.2010 the Honble Court conducted sale and sale knocked down in favour of respondent No.2 for Rs.11,20,000/- and the matter is posted to 01.11.2010 for conformation of sale.

3. Before the executing Court, the respondents filed counter denying the material allegations inter alia contending that in terms of the decree for payment of Rs.1,25,000/- a charge was created against the property and thereby the property need not be attached under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C. and thus, failure to attach the property following the procedure under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C. is not illegal or irregular and thereby the sale is not vitiated by any material irregularity or illegality and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Before the executing Court, the 2nd petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the 1st respondent was examined as RW.1. No documents were marked.

5. Upon hearing argument of both counsel, the executing Court not only recorded a finding on the ground urged in the petition i.e. about proceeding to sell the property without attachment in compliance of Order 21 Rule 54, but also the other grounds raised with regard to the non service of notice under Order XXI Rule 66 C.P.C. and sale of entire property for realization of Rs.3,30,000/- and dismissed the petition.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred C.M.A, before the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, which was ended in dismissal confirming the order passed by the executing Court and dismissed E.P.

7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by the executing Court and appellate Court, the present revision petition is filed reiterating the same grounds. Though the petitioner raised only one ground in the petition before the executing Court, under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C., during enquiry there was an improvement raising several contentions regarding non service of notice under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. and sale of entire property, though the amount to be realized is Rs.3,30,000/- under the decree.

8. During hearing, Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that non service of notice under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. is a serious irregularity and without serving notice, property cannot be sold in execution of a decree for realization of debt due. He also contended that the sale of the property without attachment under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C. is a serious irregularity and placed reliance on judgments of the Apex Court in Mannem Peda Narisi Reddi v Maddivenkayya died and others,AIR 1977 AP 234 & M/s Mahakal Automobiles & Another Vs. Kishan Swaroop Sharma.,AIR 2008 SC 2061

9. Yet another contention urged before this Court is that the sale of entire property of Ac.2.33 c