THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5347 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.255 of 2006 against the petitioners in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, for foreclosure of mortgage. The petitioners entered appearance and contested the suit. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 30.11.2007. That was followed by a final decree on 02.09.2008. Since the petitioners did not pay the decretal amount, the respondent filed E.P.No.103 of 08 for sale of the mortgaged property. After issuing notices to the parties, the executing Court conducted the sale of the property on 21.08.2009. Obviously, because the petitioners did not file any application to set aside the sale, the executing Court confirmed the sale through Order, dated 12.11.2009 and issued a sale certificate on 18.11.2009. Possession of the property said to have been delivered to the auction purchaser on 20.11.2009 and E.P was closed on 04.12.2009. The 1st respondent filed a cheque petition for payment of the decretal amount and it has been ordered on 08.12.2009. 2. This revision is filed against the sale of the property conducted by the executing Court and no specific order is challenged. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit and supporting documents. It is stated that the C.R.P is not maintainable, since no specific order is challenged in it. He contends that the petitioners filed an application under Rule 106 of Order XXI CPC with a prayer to set aside the order passed in the E.P and since there was delay in filing that application, E.A.No.254 of 2009 was filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act,1963 (for short ‘the Act’) with a prayer to condone the delay of 171 days. He stated that E.A.No.254 of 2009 was dismissed on 10.11.2009 and it has become final. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the value of the property is about Rs.6,00,000/- and sale of one portion of it would have fetched the decretal amount. He contends that the executing Court did not follow the prescribed procedure and the property worth Rs.6,00,000/- was sold for a sum of Rs.1,74,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that there are absolutely no bona fidies on the part of the petitioners and they did not respond though they have been put on notice at every stage of the proceedings. He contends that the perusal of the order in E.A.No.254 of 2009 would disclose the nature of participation on the part of the petitioners in the execution proceedings. 6. No specific order is challenged in this revision. It is directed generally against the entire sale proceedings. Such a revision cannot be entertained in law. It is not in dispute that quite a large number of orders were passed from time to time, at various stages. None of the proceedings are challenged. 7. The sale was held on 21.08.2009 and a third party, who is impleaded as 2nd respondent in this C.R.P, has emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-. In case the petitioners had any grievance about the sale, they ought to have filed application under Rule 89 or 90 of Order XXI CPC. They have not chosen to do so. At one stage, they have filed an application under Rule 106 of Order XXI that too, by filing an application to condone the delay of 171 days. The application, filed under section 5 of the Act was dismissed and the petitioners did not choose to carry the matter further. After giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners, the executing Court had confirmed the sale, issued sale certificate, delivered the possession of the schedule property, closed the E.P and paid the decretal amount to the respondent. Not a single order mentioned above, was challenged by the petitioners. The sale has become final and the petitioners cannot file a revision of this nature. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners state that they have deposited amount in compliance with the interim directions of this Court. Since the CRP is dismissed, it shall be open to them to withdraw the deposited amount. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 20th January, 2011 VJL/KTL