THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY A.S.No.668 of 2009 ORDER: This appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. arises out of an application filed by the appellant herein under Rule 90 of Order 21 C.P.C. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.20 of 1997 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram against respondents 2,3 and 4 for foreclosure of mortgage covered by a document dated 25.03.1995 in respect of Ac.3.98 cents of land in Survey No.30/1 and 2 of Peddarayavaram Village, East Godavari District. An ex parte preliminary decree was passed on 05.08.1997. This was followed by a final decree and filing of E.P.No.4 of 2002. The mortgaged property was about to put to sale. At that stage, the appellant filed E.A.No.266 of 2008 under Section 47 read with Section 151 C.P.C. pleading that there existed a prior mortgage in his favour by deposit of title deeds on 27.03.1994 by respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the same property. The E.A. was dismissed by observing that the sale of the suit schedule property therein shall be subject to mortgage if any in favour of the appellant. That order is said to have been confirmed by this Court in a revision. The sale of the property was proceeded with. The 5th respondent has emerged as highest bidder for a sum of Rs.8,17,000/-. The decree holder i.e.. 1st respondent filed E.A.No.129 of 2009 with a prayer to issue cheque for the decretal amount. At that stage, the appellant filed E.A.(sr).No.2154 of 2009 with a prayer to set aside the sale by pointing out certain grounds. The executing Court dismissed the same through order, dated 01.07.2009. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Dyumini, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent –auction purchaser. None appeared for respondent No.4. The appellant is a third party to the suit as well as the execution proceedings. Respondents 2 and 3 are the mortgagors, 1st respondent is a mortgagee and the 4th respondent is said to be a guarantor. The basis for the claim of the appellant is that there existed a prior mortgage in his favour in respect of that property. The interest of the appellant has already been protected through a direction issued in E.A.No.266 of 2008 to the effect that the sale in the present set of proceedings shall be subject to the mortgage if any. A further development that has taken place thereafter, viz that the appellant filed O.S.No.114 of 2008 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada for foreclosure of mortgage in his favour. In case, any of the parties to the present set of proceedings, such as auction purchaser-5th respondent is not a party to that, it shall be open to the appellant to implead him. In the light of the observations made by the executing Court in I.A.No.266 of 2008, the rights of the appellant are amply protected. He cannot be permitted to interfere at the subsequent stages of sale by pointing out one ground or other, particularly those which are available to respondents 2 and 3 alone. The executing Court has taken correct view of the matter. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ____________ 13.07.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY A.S.No.668 of 2009 Date: 13.07.2010 JSU