ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.10.2015 in E.A.No.3 of 2013 in E.P.No.166 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, thereby dismissing the petition under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the Judgment Debtor and the first respondent is the Decree Holder. The first respondent filed a suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.15,000/- in O.S.No.396 of 1999. The said suit was decreed by a Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.2001. In pursuant to the decree, the first respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.166 of 2002 for recovery of the due of Rs.24,449/-. On 12.08.2002, the sale papers were filed by the first respondent herein and the same was admitted by the Court below and issued notice to the petitioner herein. On 23.09.2002, the petitioner herein entered appearance and thereafter he remained absent. Therefore, an ex-parte order was passed by the Execution Court. As per the ex-parte decree, the upset price was fixed and the property was brought for sale on 18.02.2003. There was no bid for the sale fixed on 24.04.2003 and as such, the petition was filed to reduce the upset price in E.A.No.233 of 2003. The said petition was allowed and the upset price for the properties was reduced.

3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a petition to stay the sale proceedings in E.A.No.152 of 2004. Though the stay was granted, the first respondent filed a petition to vacate the stay and the same was allowed. Thereafter, on direction issued by this Court in C.R.P.No.476 of 2010, the Execution Court was directed to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of two months. On such direction, the Execution Court issued sale warrant on 19.12.2012. Accordingly, the auction was held, in which the first respondent was permitted to participate in the auction and he successfully bid for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the 1st item of the suit schedule property. He issued a receipt for satisfaction of the warrant amount and acknowledged the deposit of the remaining sale proceeds into the Court. At that juncture, the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the sale in E.A.No.3 of 2013 under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC. It was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, as contemplated under Order

21 Rule 89 of CPC, within a period of 60 days.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the auction was conducted on 02.01.2013 and the petitioner filed a petition to set aside the auction sale on 18.01.2013 viz., within a period of 30 days from the date of auction sale. The petitioner also filed a petition along with lodgment schedule for issuance of challan in order to comply the provision under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC. It was accepted by the Court below and the Court below failed to issue any challan for deposit in the sale. In fact, the petitioner also filed a petition to advance the hearing in E.A.No.3 of 2013. Though it was allowed, the Court below failed to issue any challan for depositing the amount. Therefore, it was completely the mistake committed by the Court below and not by the petitioner.

5. In order to substantiate his contention he also relied upon the Judgment reported in AIR 1993 Calcutta 14 in the case of Shyama Charan Auddy and another Vs. Smt.Bimala Balan Sen and another and the Judgment reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 4175 in the case of M.Kannabiran Vs. R.Mangalam and another.

6. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that though the petitioner filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC, he failed to deposit the amount as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 89 of CPC within a period of 60 days. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition.

7. Heard, Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.R.Gopika, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.J.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to