Antony Dominic, J.

1. FAO.306/13 is filed by the judgment debtor in EP.24/08 in OS.30/03 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangad, challenging the order passed by that court in EA.87/11, whereby, his application filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the sale conducted on 26.5.2011 was dismissed. FAO.27/14 is filed by the purchaser of the property in court auction, aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2013 allowing EA.105/13 filed by the judgment debtor.

2. On facts, it is only relevant to state that the first respondent had filed OS.30/03 which was decreed in his favour and the decree has become final. EP.24/08 was filed to realise the decree debt by sale of the attached properties owned by the appellant judgment debtor. In the execution petition, on 25.7.2009, the decree holder submitted schedule of properties for proclamation and sale. This consisted of two items, having an extent of 25 cents and 11 cents respectively.

3. In EA.124/10 filed by the appellant judgment debtor, he inter alia pleaded that it was not necessary to sell both items of properties for realisation of the decree debt. This application was considered by the court in exercise of its power under Order XXI Rule 64 and order dated 7.4.2011 was passed, which, inter alia, reads thus:

"Therefore the two items shall be sold as separate lots. The second item shall be sold at the first instance and if the sale proceeds are found to be not sufficient to satisfy the decree debt and costs, the first item shall be sold distinctly. If the sale proceeds of the second item is found sufficient as above, further sale shall be stopped. The petition is partly allowed accordingly."

4. However, proclamation was issued on 7.5.2011 without adverting to the order dated 7.4.2011 and fixing an upset price of Rs.13,50,052/-. Auction was conducted on 25.6.2011 and the property was purchased by the second respondent. According to the appellant, throughout, the parties were under the impression that the property was sold in conformity with the order dated 7.4.2011.

5. Subsequently, the appellant filed EA.87/11 under Order XXI Rule 90, seeking to set aside the sale. According to the appellant, ignoring the pendency of EA.87/11, the execution court confirmed the sale on 30.11.2012 and issued the sale certificate. Thereupon, the appellant filed EA.105/13 seeking to review the said order. This EA was allowed by order dated 23.7.2013 and accordingly, the order dated 30.11.2012 was reviewed. Thereafter, EA.87/11 was heard and according to the appellant, it was at that stage, it was revealed that the property sold in the court auction held on 26.5.2011 was the first item of 25 cents and not 11 cents, in compliance with the order dated 7.4.2011. According to him, it was also revealed that the property was sold for Rs. 10,53,052/- which was far below the upset price of Rs.13,50,052/- fixed in the proclamation of sale. By the impugned order dated 12.9.2013, EA.87/11 was dismissed by the execution court.

6. It is aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2013 in EA.105/13 that the purchaser of the property has filed FAO.27/14 and FAO.306/13 has been filed by the judgment debtor aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2013 dismissing EA.87/11.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions made.

8. In so far as FAO.27/13 is concerned, as we have already stated, the judgment debtor had filed EA.87/11 under Order XXI Rule 90, praying for an order setting aside the sale conducted on 26.5.2011. It was during the pendency of that application that the execution court confirmed the sale on 30.11.2012 and issued the certificate of sale. This, obviously, was a mistake committed by the court and it was accepting that mistake, that the court below passed order dated 23.7.2013 in EA.105/13 reviewing the order dated 30.11.12 and restoring status quo ante in the matter. This exercise, according to us, was one correcting an obvious mistake committe