J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J This appeal and the original petition are between the same parties. The appellant and the petitioner in both the cases is the judgment debtor in a money suit in O.S No.78 of 2015. In execution, his property was proclaimed and sold. As against the fixation of the upset price, he has come up in O.P (C) No.939 of 2020. The sale had taken place and the same has been confirmed. He filed an application to set aside the sale. That entered in dismissal. Challenging that order, he has filed FAO No.104 of 2020.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner raised two fold arguments:

3. In the proclamation, the venue of sale was mentioned as the site of the immovable property, however, the sale was conducted in the Court.

4. It is further argued that the property is a mortgaged one. However, in the sale proclamation, it was mentioned that the property is free from encumbrance.

5. The auction purchaser is the decree holder. The auction purchaser had taken part in the auction with the permission of the Court. 6. The learned counsel for the auction purchaser/decree holder would submit that in the order of the upset price, the Execution Court had mentioned