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 recent construction with plinth area of above 2000 sq. feet in 260 sq. yards site situated in a commercial locality of in and around school and hospital and the value of the property is more than Rs. 30,00,000/-. As there was no proper and sufficient description of property sold and house number is also not mentioned and the boundaries mentioned are also incorrect, the bidders have no idea of the actual property advertised for sale and the bidders are relatives of the decree-holder. There was no proper publication or proclamation of sale by beat of tom-tom and the publication made in Praja Shakthi Newspaper has no wide circulation and the sale took place in a concealed and secret manner without due publicity. It is further contended that the lower Court should have considered only six members have participated, who are close relatives to the decree-holder. It is also the contention that the executing Court cannot sell more than such extent of property which is enough to satisfy the decree. The lower Court also went wrong in dismissing the petition on the ground that the earlier petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC was dismissed for default. The expression in Malempati Harinarayana vs. Vankayalapati Subba Rao, 2013 (2) ALT 520 was not even considered by the lower Court and sought for setting aside the sale set aside petition dismissal order of the lower Court and to allow the appeal as prayed for by setting aside the sale.

3. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the decree-holder that order of the lower Court holds good and for this Court while sitting against the appeal, there is nothing to interfere and sought for dismissal.

4. Heard and perused the material on record.

5. The claim of the petitioner is that there are irregularities in conducting the sale of the petition schedule property. In fact, Order XXI Rule 64 CPC mandates as a duty of the Court that only such portion of the property that would satisfy the decree alone to be sold and not the entire property. The wording is the following:

“Any court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold, and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled to the decree to receive the same.”

6. The Apex Court in Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi vs. Pujari Padmavathamma, AIR 1977 SC 1789 categorically held that the party can apply for non compliance of the mandatory provision of Order XXI Rule 64 CPC by the Court, in seeking to set aside the sale. There the D. Hr. was the auction purchaser. It was observed that it is manifest where amount specified in proclamation of sale for recovery of which the sale was