ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in E.A.No.942 of 2015 in E.P.No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 whereby the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner herein/JDR seeking to set aside the sale and permit him to deposit the EP amount.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is the judgment debtor, the 1st respondent is the decree holder, and the 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser of the E.P. schedule property. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC in E.A.No.942 of 2015 in E.P.No.268 of 2011 in O.S.No.731 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking to set aside the sale of auction conducted on 22.06.2015 and permit him to deposit the EP Amount, claiming that he secured the amount payable in the E.P., and he is ready to deposit the same. The said application was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 22.01.2016 on the ground that the application is barred by limitation.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revision.

3. Heard Sri G.V.S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/JDR, and Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser.

None appeared for the 1st respondent/DHR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner filed the application within prescribed time i.e., on 21.08.2015 as per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the subsequent days i.e., 22.08.2015 and 23.08.2015 happened to be Saturday and Sunday, then the petition was numbered on 24.08.2015. Therefore, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the application on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. He also contends that the petitioner is at liberty to deposit the EP amount only after he is permitted by the Court and the EP amount need not be deposited at the time of filing of the application. He, therefore, prays to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser submits that in pursuance of the auction conducted by the Court below for sale of the EP schedule property, the 2nd respondent participated in the auction conducted on 22.06.2015 and became the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- and he deposited the said amount along with other requisite amounts and thereafter, the Court below confirmed the sale in his favour on 16.02.2016. He contends that the petitioner filed the E.A. with false and untenable grounds without depositing the any amount that too with delay, which is a precondition for filing the application under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC. He also contends that the petitioner filed the application on 24.08.2015 and it was numbered on 02.11.2015 instead of filing the same on or before 22.08.2015 as required under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He submits that the Court below rightly dismissed the application on the ground that the application was not filed within the prescribed period as per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He contends that the deposit of the requisite amount in the Court is a condition precedent or a sine qua non to application for setting aside the execution of sale and such an amount must be deposited within the prescribed time for making the application. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annapurna Vs.

Mallikarjun1. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. The Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation. As per Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC has to be filed within 60 days from the date of sale and the same is the