ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 04.04.2018 in E.P.No.87 of 2009 in O.S.No.205 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor by which the execution court set aside the sale allegedly conducted on 17.06.2013.

2. E.P.No.87 of 2009 is filed for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.62,361/- with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.30,000/- by sale of the property mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition. On 27.07.2017 DHr filed a memo along with calculation of the balance amount to be paid after conducting the amount due under the decree from the total sale consideration amount as per the price of sale allegedly took place in the auction conducted on 17.06.2013 and asked the trial Court to set off the amount of 3/4th of the sale price and permit the DHr to pay balance of Rs.3,569/- by showing the calculation as follows:

Total sale price Rs.1,05,500-00

1/4th amount of sale price was deposited in Bank on 18.06.2013 (-) 26,375-00 --------------------

Balance amount to be paid by the decree Holder cum auction purchaser 79,125-00 E.P.amount due (-) 62,361-00 --------------------

Rs.16,764-00 Interest on EP amount from 07.12.2009 To 17.06.2013 at 6% p.a. (-) 13,195-00 ---------------------

Balance amount to be paid by the Rs,3,569-00 Decree holder/auction purchaser ---------------------

3. On 04.04.2018 the execution court observed in the order that the DHr intended to pay the remaining balance amount and therefore the execution court perused the entire material available on record as it was brought to the notice that the sale was conducted and knocked down in favour of the DHr as the highest bidder on 17.06.2013 after permitting DHr to participate in the auction by allowing the petition under Order 21, Rule 72 CPC on the same day, but the docket of the execution proceedings did not reveal the same. The execution Court recorded that the terms were settled on 20.04.2013 and later the matter was posted for proclamation and sale on 05.06.2013 and later the matter was posted for further hearing on 12.06.2013 and that the matter has been again posted on 05.06.2013 for proclamation and sale for want of bidders and the matter was adjourned to 12.06.2013 on which day also the matter was adjourned to 17.06.2013 for sale for want of bidders. It is further noted that on 17.06.2013 also the matter was posted to 26.07.2013 for proclamation and sale directing paper publication in Prajasakthi daily news paper against the JDr in Chittoor local edition and thereafter the matter adjourned from 26.07.2013 till 19.12.2013 at the same stage of proclamation and publication. The execution court, thus concluded that the proceedings did not reflect any auction conducted on 17.06.2013 or the DHr paying amount of poundage or for expenses of non-judicial for issue of sale certificate on 17.06.2013, but the record showed that DHr paid 1/4th amount of the sale price as highest bidder on 17.06.2013. The execution court further recorded that DHr filed a memo on 17.06.2013 stating that the DHr participated in the bid with the permission of the court and in the sale proceedings, the DHr is the highest and successful bidder and requested the execution court to deduct the poundage amount from the sale amount, but the memo was not allowed by the execution court on 17.06.2013. The execution court further recorded that the said memo is also not reflected on the docket.

4. In this back drop, the execution court held that the DHr failed to pay the remaining amount of sale price within 15 days of the same as required under Order 21, Rule 85 CPC by set off the amount liable to be paid under the decree and moreover conducting of sale on 17.06.2013 was also not reflected on the docket and therefore the sale conducted on 17.06.2013 shall be set aside. Thus, the execution court passed the impugned order concluding: “Hence sale which was conducted on 17.06.