Sunil Dutta Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge F.T.C. No.1, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Misc. Appeal No.07 of 1995 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.05.1995 passed by learned Sub-Judge -I, Biharsharif in Misc. Case No.50 of 1985 by which the said Misc. Appeal has been dismissed.

3. Petitioners are heirs of judgment debtor and Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 are heirs of decree holder. Opposite Party No.3 is auction purchaser.

4. The brief facts of the case are that grandfather of opposite party nos.1 & 2 Sri Khaderan Lal was a money lender who advanced loan to the grandfather of the petitioners namely Jawahar Lal Suchanti on the basis of a demand promissory note for Rs.3,000/- dated 26.07.1969. The said Khaderan Lal filed Money Suit No.410 of 1972/ 20 of 1978 for realization of the loan amount of Rs.3,000/- against the father of petitioners as their grand-father by that time had died. The said money suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Biharsharif. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred Money Appeal No.10 of 1979 which was decreed by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal with cost and held that plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed and prepared the money decree for Rs.3,354.40/- with cost (which was amended and included pendente lite and future interest till realization). The decree holder for realization of the said money decree filed the Execution Case No.2/83(38/85) against the Judgment Debtor.

5. The Judgment-debtor filed a petition dated 04.12.1985 under Section 11 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act and Section 47, 151 and Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. in the Court of Sub Judge I, Bihar Sharif which was registered as Misc. Case No.04 of 1985 and renumbered as Misc. Case No.50 of 1985 after transfer to the Court of IVth Additional Sub Judge, Bihar Sharif. It is prayed therein to set aside the auction sale held on 28.11.1985 on various grounds including that the land in question is residential house of petitioners, no notice of the process was served upon them, the decree was wrongly amended, the auction was held on lower price, the decree holder committed fraud on the Court. The opposite party filed the rejoinder and stated that the petitioners had full knowledge of all the process of execution case and the attachment and auction sale was done properly. The executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The applicant examined five witnesses and referred some documents in support of his case. Opposite party also examined seven witnesses and adduced documentary evidence to say that the auction sale is valid.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif, Nalanda on the basis of material on record held that the applicant has admitted that he has knowledge of each and every stage of the suit and execution case and then he did nothing. He has got many opportunity to deposit decreetal amount but always avoid it and lastly he has filed Misc. Case and the Court further held that there is no ground to disbelieve the version of process server and others. Entire cross-examination of the petitioners will show that he has filed this case only to delay the matter.

7. The father of petitioners had died on 17.07.1994 during the pendency of Misc. Case No.50/85 and in his place, the petitioners were substituted. The original decree holder Sri Khaderan Lal died before filing of the said Misc. Case and his son Rameshwar Prasad was made opposite party no.1 in the Misc. Case but he also died and in his place his two sons, i.e. the opposite party nos.1 & 2 were substituted.

8. The Judgment-debtors/ petitioners claimed in the said execution case that the decree holder put the valuable property of petitioners on sale without observing the provision of law for fixing the value of the same for which the petitioners filed objection and after hearing