THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2203 of 2011 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order dated 19.04.2011 in E.A.No.96 of 2009 in E.P.No.150 of 2005 in O.S.No.4 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. The revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors 1 to 7 in the Execution Petition. The suit in O.S.No.4 of 2005 was filed by the decree holder against one Janagam Nageswara Rao, who is since deceased and obtained a decree on 22.09.2005. The revision petitioners 2 to 7 are the legal representations of the 1st defendant. The petition in E.P.No.150 of 2007 was filed for recovery of the said amount and attachment of the properties were made on 14.02.2006. The value of the Amin at the time of attachment was Rs.4,12,000/- and at the time of test the Amin valued at Rs.3,50,000/-. Subsequently, the sale was held on 06.11.2009 and the 2nd respondent herein has become the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and the sale was knocked down in his favour. Thereafter, E.A.No.96 of 2009 was filed under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) to set aside the sale, mainly on the ground that the value of the property shown at the time of test, at the time of attachment and at the time of sale are not proper and the judgment-debtors have no notice of the proceedings. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali did not accept the contention and he dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali is legal and sustainable? POINT: It is now fairly well settled that merely in a Court auction sale, the value fetched in the sale is less, is no ground for the Court to set aside a sale, unless there are material irregularities affecting the sale. According to the case of the revision petitioners, there was an offer for purchase of the property for Rs.17 lakhs and the property was in a commercial locality and the auction was not knocked down by producing the participants, who are the henchmen of the decree holder and, therefore, the sale is not a genuine sale. Though the judgment-debtors have claimed that the property is worth Rs.17 lakhs and there was an offer for purchase of the same, no evidence to that effect has been produced before the lower Court. In fact, to prove the valuation of the neighbouring buildings of such a huge value also, no document is filed. Evidently, the test was conducted and the valuation was given by the Amin and the decree holder also gave the valuation. As can be seen from the order of the Court, in para No.19, it is not as though the petitioners have no knowledge of the proceedings. In fact, they were represented by an advocate when notice under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC and also the sale notice was served, no objections were raised about the valuation fixed by the Court or the Amin and further it was noticed by the Court that the auction of the sale was adjourned on several occasions on account of the petitions filed by the revision petitioners for adjournment of the sale. Therefore, this clearly goes to show that about the valuation or about the sale notification, no objections have been raised by the revision petitioners, when once sufficient opportunity was given and even when the claim of the revision petitioners before the lower Court was that an offer was made for Rs.17 lakhs by intending purchasers. The revision petitioners have not repaid the amount before the sale and after asking adjournment of the sale and at this stage, claiming sympathies that the property belongs to the deceased and they have no house to live is not a valid ground. Therefore, taking any of the view of the matter, there are no irregularities and all the proceedings have taken place with the knowledge and in the presence of the judgment-debtors and they cannot complain any irregularities. Even after sufficient time was given by this Court for deposit of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs as provided under Order XXI Rule 90 of CPC, when such an application is filed, the petitioners have failed to avail the said opportunity. This clearly goes to show that the alleged offer for purchase for Rs.17 lakhs and the value of the property is not true. Therefore, I find that there are no irregularities and there is no prejudice caused to the petitioners and there are absolutely no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The other applications are also dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-11-2011 MR. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 2203 of 2011 21-11-2011 MR