ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in EA No. 168 of 2018 in EP No. 31 of 2007 in OS No. 61 of 2000 dated 12.12.2018.

2. The petitioner is the 3rd party.

3. The decree was passed in OS No. 61 of 2000 in favour of the 1st respondent (since deceased) and against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for recovery of money. Basing on the decree dated 28.12.2003 in the above suit, the deceased 1st respondent levied execution petition, requesting for sale of the properties attached, said to be belonging to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After following due procedure, sale was directed and in fact sale was held on 26.7.2018. Thereafter, the execution petition was posted for confirmation of sale to 24.9.2018. The 5th respondent is the auction purchaser of the property so sold for Rs. 33,56,155/-.

4. It now, transpires the sale in favour of 5th respondent has been confirmed by the executing Court on 3.1.2019.

5. The petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the E.P. schedule property on 27.12.2004, from one Sri A. Venkatanagendra Rao and four others for valuable consideration. On an earlier occasion, he filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in EA No. 448 of 2008 on the file of the executing Court. It was dismissed on 20.8.2010 after hearing the parties, on merits. AS No. 146 of 2010 preferred by him on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore was also dismissed, stated to be on merits on 1.5.2014 confirming the order of the executing Court, rejecting the petition or claim raised by the petitioner.

6. The above are not disputed facts in this case.

7. However, the petitioner chose to file EA No. 168 of 2018 under Order XXI Rule 89 read with 151 CPC to set aside the sale subject to depositing E.P. amount alongwith 5% equal to purchase amount. The respondent No. 1 died and his wife who is the 2nd respondent was brought on record in the execution petition itself. She as well as the auction purchaser namely 5th respondent resisted the petition, raising almost similar contentions questioning very status of the petitioner and as to maintainability of petition under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC, since he being not judgment debtor. Another ground urged by both of them in the executing Court was, that the petitioner did not come forward to deposit the required amount within 60 days from the date of sale and mere presentation of a petition, in an attempt to deposit such amount after expiry of 60 days, was not proper.

8. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 raised objections questioning attachment of the property as well as manner of sale mainly on the ground that the property worth Rs. 90,00,000/- was sold for less amount, in an attempt to make out irregularity in conduct of sale.

9. Upon hearing the parties, the executing Court dismissed the petition, mainly on the ground that mere presentation of the petition alongwith lodgment schedule is not sufficient, which attempt was made on the 60th day from the date of the sale without actually depositing the required amount. Thus, it was observed that it was not open for the petitioner to invoke under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC and request to set aside the sale.

10. Assailing the order of the executing Court, the petitioner has presented this civil revision petition.

11. On behalf of the petitioner Sri T. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and on behalf of 5th respondent Miss Y.L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned Counsel, and on behalf of 2nd respondent Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned Counsel, addressed arguments, justifying their respective stands.

12. Now, the point for determination is-whether the sale of E.P. schedule property as requested by the petitioner be set aside on the ground raised in terms of Order XXI Rule 89 CPC?

13. Order XXL Rule 89 CPC reads as under:

89. Application to set aside sale on deposit.--(1) Where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any per