1. The revision petitioner is judgment-debtor No. 4. Respondent No. 4 herein is plaintiff, who filed O.S. No. 766 of 2011 and the said suit was decreed in his favour. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 68 of 2012 for sale of the petition schedule property for realisation of the decree debt and the property was sold on 18.01.2016 in the public auction. Questioning the said public auction, dated 18.01.2016, judgment-debtor No. 4 filed E.A. No. 189 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale of the E.P. schedule property on the grounds of irregularity in conducting the sale and as the said petition was dismissed, the present revision is filed impugning the same.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower Court gravely erred in dismissing the petition and failed to consider the principles of law that while conducting auction sale in execution of a decree, the Court is under a duty to follow the mandatory requirements contained under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC. It is also the contention that the petition schedule property in question is grossly under valued in the sale proclamation and it is an RCC building of rece