HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5862 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order dated 27.11.2009 in un-numbered E.A. in E.P.No.121 of 2008 in O.S.No.447 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor, who suffered a decree in a suit filed for recovery of money based on the mortgage deed and on the promissory note dated 04.10.2000. As the decreetal amount was not paid, the first respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No.121 of 2008 for sale of the suit schedule property. The said property was put to auction on 29.09.2009 and the second respondent became the highest bidder. Thereafter, the petitioner- judgment debtor filed an un-numbered E.A., under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, seeking to set aside the sale in E.P.No.121 of 2008 held on 29.09.2009. In the said application, the Court below, while issuing notice to the petitioner-judgment debtor, passed the docket order dated 27.11.2009 directing him to furnish security for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant, as per amendment of AP appended to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. I have perused the order under revision. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered a decree. However, it is not known from the impugned docket order what was the decreetal amount. In the affidavit, it is stated that the mortgaged property was sold in public auction for Rs.2,33,000/- whereas the property was worth Rs.6.00 lakhs. The petitioner states that the first respondent played fraud in not giving wide publicity while conducting auction. The petitioner has not narrated as to how the fraud has been played. However, the sale of the property could not be conducted overnight and several steps have to be taken for conducting sale of the schedule property. Under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC, where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree holder or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it. The petitioner being a judgment debtor will not be entitled to the relief of setting aside the order passed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. However, even on the ground of fraud, no such application has been filed before sale proclamation was drawn up. As per the proviso substituted, unless the applicant furnishes security to the satisfaction of the Court for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or to that realized by the sale, whichever is less, such application cannot be entertained. In the instant case, the learned Judge only directed the petitioner to furnish security for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant, as per amendment of AP appended to Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. Hence, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned docket order. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J Date:24.06.2011 usd