( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition under S. 115 CPC, is preferred by the judgment- debtor against the order dated 24-8-1977 passed by the learned Addl. Civil judge, Bangalore City, confirming the order dated 17-3-1975 passed by the executing Court in Exn. Case No. 272 of 1968.

( 2 ) FACTS necessary to appreciate the contentions raised by Sri V. Krishnamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, are as follows:2. 1) The deceased first respondent by name B. Gangappa had obtained a decree for money against the petitioner- judgment debtor. The execution of that decree was taken out in Exen. No. 272 of 1968. During the course of the execution, the house property belonging to the petitoner was put up for sale. As per the order sheet of the case, the sale at the spot was to be held on 27-11-1971 and the final bid was to take place before the presiding officer of the Court on 29-11-1971. Accordingly, the sale at the spot was held on 27-11-1971. The 2nd respondent offered the highest bid for Rs. 40,000. Thereafter, the final bid was to take place on 29-11-1971 before the Presiding Officer at the Court house. The records of the case do not reveal nor is it found in the order sheet of the case that on 29-11-1971, the final bid has been held before the Presiding officer at the Court house. On the con- trary, the order sheet of 29-11-1971 reads as follows: "sale held on 27-11-1971: One Sri seethappa Ajp has purchased the schedule property for Rs. 40,000 (forty thousand) only and full amount of Rs. 40,000 deposited under r. O. 376369 dated 29-11-1971 and poundage fee of Rs. 410-00 has been - credited under RO. 1030 dated 29-11-1971. For confirmation by Intls. 3. 1. " thereafter, under an erroneous impression that the sale has taken place, the judgment-debtor has filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 CPC, for setting aside the sale. Curiously enough, the Court also without noticing that the final bid has not taken place has proceeded to enquire into the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sale. 2. 2. During the course of enquiry the judgment-debtor came forward to make payment of the amount on 25-11-1974 and he made payment of Rs. 2000 which was received by the decree- holder. The Court passed an order on that day by entering part satisfaction of the decree for Rs. 2,000 and adjourned the case to 2-12-1974 for payment of the balance. On 2-12-1974, the case was adjourned to 6-1-1975 and on that day, the judgment debtor made further payment of Rs. 500 which was received by the decree-holder towards the part satisfaction of the decree and the decree-holder also submitted that he had no objection for setting aside the sale held on 27-11-1971. The case came to be posted on 31-1-1975 to hear the auction purchaser. 2. 3. On 31-1-1975, as per the order sheet, the auction purchaser also submitted that he was agreeable for setting aside the sale if he were to be paid back the bid amount with solatium. It can further be inferred from the order sheet of 31-1-1975 that the judgment debtor also had agreed to pay the balance of the amount due under the decree and the solatium. In view of this agreement, the judgment debtor had not pressed his application for setting aside the sale. Accordingly, the court, while granting time to the judgment debtor to pay the balance of the decretal amount and the solatium, has dismissed the application. The order passed on 31-1-1975 reads as follows: "d. H. by Sri M. R J J. Dr. by sri N. S. K. To hear the auction purchaser: auction purchaser submits that he is agreeable to set aside the sale if he is paid back the amount with solatium The J. Dr. has not paid the balance also. He also submits that he will not press the application filed to set aside the sale. Hence the said application is rejected. Posted finally to deposit the solatium and to pay the balance of decretal amount. Adj. to 15/3. . ' on 15-3-1975, the decree-holder received a further sum of Rs. 1,000 and the court ent