THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5026 of 2006 Date: 04.3.2011 Between: Adusumilli Kamalamma ……….. Petitioner/J.Dr.No.2 And Gaddam Savitramma ……. Respondent/D.Hr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.5026 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order and decree dated 18.9.2006 passed in E.A.No.285 of 2006 in E.P.No.43 of 2004 in O.S.No.421 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. No representation for the revision petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the entire record and also the counter filed by the Decree Holder and submitted that there are no grounds to set aside the sale held on 15.6.2005. The respondent herein is the decree holder. The petitioner herein is Judgment Debtor No.2. The petitioner filed the E.A to set aside the sale held on 15.6.2005 contending inter alia that there are several irregularities in conducting of the sale. The respondent/D.Hr filed a detailed counter. The lower Court directed the petitioner/J.Dr to deposit the amount shown in sale warrant before proceeding with the enquiry. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on the judgment of this Court in case between Smanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi v. State Bank of Indian and another[1]. The amendment of Order 21, Rule 90 CPC provides that whenever an objection is raised by the judgment debtor or a third party or any person claiming the property that was sold in public auction, the Court may call upon the said person either to furnish security for an amount equal to that mentioned in the sale warrant or that realized by sale or to deposit the said amount in Court. This provision is only for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the decree holders or to sustain the sale effected in execution of the decree. Since the petitioner was directed to deposit the warrant amount, before proceeding with the enquiry, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:04.3.2011 mrb [1] 2006 (3) A.L.T 193