THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 5007 of 2011 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, dismissing the appeal in C.M.A. No. 2 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioner against the order dated 14.06.2011, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in E.A. No. 415 of 2009 in E.P. No. 134 of 2003 in O.S. No. 84 of 1999, ﬁled by him under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C., praying to set aside the sale held on 25.03.2008 on the ground that there is material irregularity in the proclamation and publication of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had executed mortgage deed dated 08.11.1995 in respect of the E.P. schedule property. Respondent No.1 also obtained a preliminary decree in respect of the said property in O.S. No.203 of 2007. This apart, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,32,928/- on 25.04.2009 to the credit of E.P. Without mentioning these facts in the proclamation of sale and publication, the executing Court conducted sale of the E.P. schedule property, which is ab initio void. Since there is irregularity in the conduct of sale, the petitioner invoking the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C., ﬁled the present application to set aside the sale, but the executing Court, as conﬁrmed by the appellate Court, committed in stead of computing the period of limitation prescribed in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, committed a grave error in dismissing the same, holding that the application is barred by limitation by computing the period of limitation prescribed in Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Hence, he prayed that order under revision, passed by the appellate Court, conﬁrming the order of the executing court be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders under revision. The petitioner is the judgment debtor, respondent No.1 is the decree-holder and respondent No.3 is the auction purchaser. May be the petitioner has created mortgage over the E.P. schedule property, and may be the same is not disclosed in the proclamation for sale and the publication, but that by itself is no ground to set aside the sale, because the mortgage is created in favour of respondent No.1, who ﬁled the suit and obtained decree, and to realize his money, sold the property, and if any loss is to be suﬀered, it is not the petitioner, but respondent No.1 who would suffer. Be that as it may, admittedly, the sale of the property was confirmed in favour of respondent No.2. If according to the petitioner, irregularity took place in the conduct of the sale, the remedy available for him was to ﬁle application to set aside the same under Order XXI, Rule 90 C.P.C. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Syed Quadri v. Syed Mujeebuddin[1], wherein it was held that if there is irregularity in conducting sale, Order XXI, Rule 90 C.P.C. would come into play. As per Article 127, an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity, is 60 days. In Venkataramanappa v. T.P. Chalapathi[2], this Court having considered the question when the sale conducted in execution proceedings would become absolute or can be set aside and what is the period of limitation prescribed for filing the application to set aside the sale, held as under: Sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 discloses that the sale becomes absolute and can be confirmed on fulfilling two conditions, namely (1) No application is filed under Rules 89, 91 or 91 or; (2) The application ﬁled under the above provisions has been disallowed. For making an application to set aside the sale as contemplated under Rules 89, 90 or 91, limitation of 60 days was prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act from the date of the sale. The provision indicate that the Act conferred a right upon any person to ﬁle an application even on the last date of limitation. The Execution Court is not supposed to take further steps for conﬁrmation of the sale till the expiry of the period of 60 days or till the application ﬁled under Rules 89, 90 or 91 is disposed of. Rule 92 is also supplementary to Article 127 of the Limitation Act. In the case on hand, since it is the case of the petitioner that irregularity took place in the conduct of sale, the remedy available for him is to ﬁle application under Order XXI, Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale within 60 days. The petitioner, admittedly, did not ﬁle the application within 60 days, as provided under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, but ﬁled the same long after confirmation of the sale i.e. after nineteen months. It is the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of Article 127 of the Limitation Act, are not applicable, but the provisions of Article 137 are applicable, for ﬁling the present application. This contention of the petitioner is misconceived. The provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, can be invoked only in respect of any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in that Division. But in respect of ﬁling an application to set aside a sale in execution of the decree, including any such application by a judgment debtor, Article 127 of the Limitation Act, speciﬁcally provides 60 days time to ﬁle application to set aside a sale in execution of the decree. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not ﬁle present application to set aside the sale within the period of limitation, as provided under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, the execution court, as conﬁrmed by the appellate court, dismissed the same holding that it is barred by limitation, and no exception can be taken thereto. In the above view of the matter, this Court ﬁnds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 09th December, 2011 KSR [1] 2009 (5) ALT 493 (DB) [2] 2007 (6) ALD 81