The executing court has jurisdiction to sell the attached properties only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied, and no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation.

The above revision by the judgement-debtor is directed against the order passed by the II Additional Subrodinate Judge, Salem in E.P. 67 of 1984 in O.S. 143 of 1981, confirming the sale in respect of Itmes 2 and 3, on the ground that the sale of these items amounted to excessive execution being in violation of O.21, R.64, C.P.C.

2. The first respondent filed O.S. 143 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,275 with future interest. The suit was decreed. The first respondent field E.P. 67 of 1984 under O.21, Rr.43, 64, 66 and 68, C.P.C. in respect of three items of properties. Items 1 and 2 were immoveable properties, while Item 3 was the negative print of a Tamil film with sound track. The value of the first item was shown in the E.P. as Rs. 30,000, the second item as Rs. 30,000, and the third item as Rs. 10,000. The execution petition was for a sum of Rs. 1,37,425. During the pendency of the execution petition, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 30,000 making the balance to be realised as Rs. 1,07,425. All the three items were brought for sale. Item 1 was sold for Rs. 1,15,000. Thereafter the sale of Items 2 and 3 were held. The 4th respondent herein purchased items 2 and 3. On 11-2-1985 the sale in respect of itmes 2 and 3 in favour of the fourth respondent was confirmed. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the above order of confirmation.

3. Thiru T.D. Vasu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the balance of the decree amount that was outstanding on the date of the sale was adequately met by he sale of item 1 and that the court officer ought not to have gone ahead with the sale of items 2 and 3, and that this excessive execution was in contravention of O.21, R.64, C.P.C. and the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court and that there fore the sale in respect of items 2 and 3 ought not to have been confirmed.

4. Per contra, Thiru N. Sivamani, learned counsel for the first respondent, contended that the present revision itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that this was an order passed under O.21, R.92, C.P.C. which was an appealable order under O.43, R.1(j) and that the petitioner ought to have filed, a regular appeal within the prescribed time and the present revision filed under S.115, C.P.C. was not maintainable.

5. When the main C.R.P. was heard, the petitioner, feeling doubtful as to whether the impugned order was an appealable one or not and whether the present revision would lie, filed C.M.P. 15185 of 1986 under S.151, C.P.C. seeking permission of this Court to convert C.R.P. No. 1023 of 1985 into a civil is miscellaneous appeal. Learned counsel for the first respondent filed counter and objected to the same on the ground that even if such conversion was permitted, the same could be done only if the conversion was sought for, within the period of limitation fixed for filing an appeal. In the instant case, the application was filed out of time without any separate petition under S.5 of the Limitation Act, to have the delay condoned. Thereupon, the petitioner has filed C.M.P. 6415 of 1987 to condone the delay of 559 days in filing C.M.P. 15185 of 1986.

6. The following questions arise for consideration :

1. Whether the order passed by the executing Court under O.21, R.92, C.P.C. confirming the sale on the ground that no petition to set aside the sale had been filed is an appealable order ?

2. Whether the sale of items 2 and 3 is in violation of O.21, R.64, C.P.C. ?

7. O.43, R.1(j) makes appealable :

"an order under R.72 or R.92 of O.21 setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale." *

A reading of the above sub-rule clearly indicates that an appeal would lie only against two categories of orders, viz., one setting aside the sale and the other refusing to set aside the sale. Either of the above two contingencies would arise only if an application is made to set aside the sale either