This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 7.6.2006 in C.M.A. No.66 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. The execution court passed an order dismissing E.A. No.407 of 2003 in E.P. No.324 of 2000 in O.S. No.135 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. E.A. No.407 of 2003 was filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the court sale conducted on 6.2003.

2. O.S. No. 135 of 1997 is a suit for realization of an amount of Rs.47,656/- with 12% interest from 23.1994 to 20.11.1999 and future interest at 6%. The respondent/decree-holder in execution of the decree in the said suit attached 41 cents of land belonging to the judgment debtor and the execution court sold the said property in court auction held on 6.2003. The decree-holder bid the auction and purchased the property for Rs.83,509/-. A petition for setting aside the sale was filed by the judgment debtor inter alia contending that there was no proper publication, that the sale is vitiated by fraud and that the petitioner sustained substantial injury as the property was sold for inadequate price. It was also contended that there were valuable trees in the property and that the decree-holder had deliberately withheld publication as a result of which the intending purchasers were not able to participate in the auction. The judgment debtor also contended that the property was sold at the rate of Rs.2000/- per cent whereas the property fetched more than Rs. 20,000/-on the date of sale. She also contended that a portion of the property alone was sufficient to satisfy the decree and that by the sale of the entire property, she was put to substantial injury.

3. In the objection filed by the respondent/decree-holder, it is stated that the petitioner had also filed another E.A. under Section 47 C.P.C. for the very same relief and as such, the petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that there was no objection from the side of the judgment debtor regarding the value of the property at the time when Rule 66 notice was issued and that there was proper publication.

4. In support of and opposition to the petition for setting aside the sale, in parties were examined as PW.1 and CPW.1. The court below examined the contention of the decree-holder that the petition for setting aside the sale filed under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. is not maintainable in view of the earlier application filed under Section 47 C.P.C. The court below noticed the fact that E.A. No.407 of 2003 was filed on 9.2003 under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. and that the application under Section 47

C.P.C. was filed subsequently on 110.2004. Following the decision of this Court that there is no legal bar in simultaneously prosecuting the two applications and that when an application under Section 47 C.P.C. is filed challenging the sale to be void for illegality or voidable on the grounds other than those contemplated under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C., the court below found that there cannot be any bar in maintaining Order XXI Rule 90 application. The court below held that there was proper publication in conducting the sale. The court below also held that at the time of proclamation, it was open to the revision petitioner to raise objection regarding the value of he property and that having failed to raise any such objection, she is not entitled to challenge the sale on that ground in view of Order XXI Rule 90(3) C.P.C. The court below further held that there is no irregularity, illegality or fraud in either publication or conduct of sale and that the revision petitioner failed to establish that by reason of the sale she has sustained any substantial injury. The revision petitioner preferred C.M.A. No.66 of 2005 before the District court Kottayam. By the impugned order, the District Court confirmed the order passed by the execution court and dismissed the appeal. The appellate court held that there was proper publica