THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4890, 4431 and 4928 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.1 of 2005 in the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest on the strength of a promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parte on 27.04.2006 and the decree became final. Respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.3 of 2006 for execution of the decree. An application was filed to put the E.P. schedule property to sale. The sale was conducted on 10.06.2009. At that stage, the petitioner filed E.A.No.4 of 2009 raising an objection as to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the value of the property which is sought to be sold is much more than the decretal amount. The E.A. was dismissed and the order passed by the executing Court was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3015 of 2009. The petitioner thereafter filed a set of four E.As. to make an effort to impress upon the executing Court that the property is divisible, irregularities have crept into the sale, etc. He also wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed and photographs of the premises to be taken on record. The applications were opposed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.5, who emerged as successful purchaser of the property. The executing Court dismissed the applications through separate orders, dated 18.08.2010. Hence, these revisions. Heard Sri K.Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the decree-holder and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the auction purchaser. The decree passed by the trial Court against the petitioner became final. At the stage of execution, the petitioner pressed into service every possible measure to obstruct the sale and further proceedings. At one stage, the petitioner came forward with the plea that the value of the building, which is sought to be sold is more than the decretal amount. Indirectly, he suggested that it would be sufficient that if part of the property is sold. The executing Court as well as this Court took the view that the property is not divisible. If that became final, the effort made by the petitioner by filing a bunch of petitions is nothing but a repetition of the same ploy, but in different version. He wanted an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed to examine the feasibility of division of the property, photographs to be filed and he be recalled as a witness. It needs to be noted that all these steps are taken after the auction was conducted and the successful bidder has deposited the bid amount. Rule 90 of Order 21 C.P.C. places a clear embargo upon such attempts. The petitioner was very much before the executing Court at every stage and he did not raise any objection about the nature of proclamation or other steps. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the orders under revision. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.11.2010. kdl