ORDER

Judgment debtor filed the above revision against the order dated 22.11.2022 in E.A.No.82 of 2022 in E.P.No.79 of 2018 in O.S.No.204 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore.

2. 1st Respondent, being plaintiff, filed suit O.S.No.204 of 2015 against the defendant-judgment debtor for recovery of money. Suit was decreed on 29.09.2016. Pursuant to decree and judgment, decree holder filed E.P.No.79 of 2018 under Order XXI Rule 22 to issue notice to judgment debtor and thereafter attach the schedule property under Rule 54 and to sell the schedule property under Rules 64 and 66 for realization of decretal amount. The schedule property mentioned in the E.P. is an extent of 19 ankanams and 2 square feet or 152.222 square yards of vacant site. The Executing Court, after following the procedure, conducted auction on 26.08.2022. The 2nd respondent herein became the auction purchaser for Rs.22,50,000/- and he deposited 1/4th of auction amount along with poundage on the date of auction. Later deposited remaining 3/4th amount on 05.09.2022. E.P. was adjourned to 07.11.2022 for confirmation of auction.

3. On 12.09.2022, judgment debtor filed E.A.No.82 of 2022 under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC to set aside the sale. In the affidavit, it was contended that one Narasimha Rao filed suit O.S.No.50 of 2020 against the judgment debtor for recovery of money and he got attached the schedule property by filing I.A.No.32 of 2020. As per the mediation held by the elders, Narasimha Rao agreed to purchase the schedule property for Rs.35 lakhs and in fact, an agreement of sale was also entered. The said Narasimha Rao promised to pay the balance of consideration within 3 months, after deducting his debt amount. Judgment debtor requested the counsel to file an application in E.P.No.79 of 2018, however the counsel could not file the application, as he was engaged in conducting death ceremony of his maternal aunt. The executing Court conducted Auction and 2nd respondent became the auction purchaser. The Auction purchaser is no other than close relative of plaintiff-decree holder. The auction was knocked down for Rs.22,50,000/- and the private market value of schedule property is more than Rs.40 lakhs and hence, filed the application to set aside the sale under Rule 89.

4. Judgment debtor deposited proclamation amount of Rs.2,01,668/- and an amount of Rs.67,645/-. It was mentioned that Rs.67,645/- is towards poundage.

5. 2nd Respondent-auction purchaser filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended that he is a bonafide purchaser. Judgment debtor is having knowledge about auction. He deposited the entire amount and thus, prayed to dismiss the application.

6. The Executing Court by order dated 22.11.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri Sri Ponnam Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned counsel for 1st respondent and Sri V.Roopesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgment debtor deposited amount as per the lodgment schedule issued by office of Executing Court. The wrong calculation made by the office of Executing Court, while issuing lodgment schedule, is no ground to refuse the relief in favour of J.Dr. He also would submit that as per Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC, along with application, judgment debtor must deposit amount mentioned in proclamation along with 5% of purchase money. He would also submit that as per Rule 281 of Civil Rules of Practice (for short “CRP”), if the sale is set aside under Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code, the Court may make an order for payment of the poundage, costs and interest. In this case, 5% of purchase money would come to Rs.1,12,500/-, however, judgment debtor deposited Rs.67,668/-. Due to wrong calculation proper amount was not deposited and in fact, judgment debtor is ready to deposit the amount. The Court below without consi