THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3023 of 2008 DATE: 01-03-2011 Between: C.Narendra Babu .. Petitioner And Pendyala Rama Rao and 2 others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3023 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.06.2008 in E.A.No.78 of 2008 in E.P.No.260 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The Revision Petitioner is a third party and he filed application under Order XXI Rule 89 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity “CPC”) seeking to set aside the sale held on 21.08.2007. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, the judgment-debtor obtained a loan from the State Bank of India and suit O.S.No.320 of 2002 was filed and preliminary decree was obtained and after that by private sale he has purchased the schedule property for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and the judgment-debtor has not revealed the pending of the suit and the sale deed was obtained on 21.08.2007. There was no proclamation of the sale and the petitioner came to know that the sale was held on 21.08.2007 and deposited the required amount as per Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC and, therefore, the sale is liable to be set aside. 3. The decree-holder and the auction purchaser opposed the application contending that the application is barred by time and there is no cause of action to file the application. 4. The judgment-debtor remained exparte. 5. The lower Court after considering the material on record dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati is legal and sustainable? POINT: 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value when the bank was proceeding against the judgment-debtor and the sale deed dated 25.06.2007 was obtained for a value of Rs.9,95,000/-. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner has to be protected, though the document of sale was not filed before the lower Court, a copy of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was filed. 8. Evidently, the purchase made by the petitioner was not in Court proceedings. It was a private sale after the attachment of the properties in the year 2002. Therefore, the transaction is against the provisions of Section 64 of CPC. There is no prior agreement preceding the sale. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioner is a third party interested in setting aside of the sale, the question is whether the petition is maintainable. 9. Evidently, the sale was held on 21.08.2007. The present application was filed on 29.10.2007, which is beyond the period of sixty days, which is the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing an application to set aside the sale. There is no provision for condoning such a delay. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable, since it is barred by time and because the petitioner has made deposit of decreetal amount, the Court sale cannot be defeated. Added to that, the sale was after the attachment of the property and the petitioner also cannot make a claim as a bona fide purchaser. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the petition was rightly dismissed by the lower Court and there are no grounds to interfere in the order of the lower Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 01-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3023 of 2008 DATE: 01-03-2011 MR