THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3734 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.17 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,10,500/-. The suit was decreed after contest, on 04.09.2006. After the decree became final, the first respondent filed E.P.No.56 of 2007. An item of immovable property owned by the petitioner was attached, and thereafter brought to sale. The second respondent, who is none other than the husband of the first respondent, emerged as highest bidder for a sum of Rs.16,60,000/-. The petitioner filed E.A.No.22 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Sections 47 and 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the sale. The principal ground urged by him was that though the value of the property is about Rs.30,00,000/-, the sale was knocked down for a meager sum of Rs.16,60,000/-. The learned District Judge heard the parties at some length and passed an order, dated 29.07.2009, to the effect that in case the petitioner procures a third party, who offered to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- or more, the sale in favour of the second respondent shall stand set aside and in default thereof, the sale would stand confirmed. Time for 15 days was granted for this purpose. This revision is filed against the said order. Sri Kowthuru Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the learned District Judge has indicated a practical solution to the grievance pointed out by the petitioner, the time granted for that purpose is too short. He further submits that it would be too difficult for the petitioner to negotiate with or arrange for a party to purchase the property of such a high value, within such a short time. The order under revision, by itself, did not bring about any finality to the sale of the property. Certain contingencies that have arisen on account of the submission made by the parties have been dealt with. It is, no doubt, true that finding a purchaser of a property of such a value within 15 days would be a difficult task. However, the petitioner can very well approach the District Court itself for extension of the time. There is no reason to believe that the request of the petitioner would not be accommodated. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Court of the District Judge, Kadapa with an application to extend the time stipulated in the order, dated 29.07.2009. As and when such application is filed, it shall be considered on its own merits and the feasibility of granting reasonable time to enable the petitioner to procure the probable purchaser shall be considered. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.08.2009 Note: Issue cc tomorrow. (B/o) Kdl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.M.P.No.1457 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.895 of 2007 Dt:06.08.2009