HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 5978 of 2010 ORDER Heard Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor, Sri K.V.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/decree holder and Sri Ch.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/auction purchaser. 2. E.A.S.R.No.2687 of 2010 in E.P.No.21 of 2008 in O.S.No.70 of 2006 before the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, was filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151 of CPC to set aside the sale on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit in support of the petition. 3. Even before registering the petition, the impugned order dated 30-11-2010, was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, stating that the petition is not maintainable as it was filed after sale and at least not on the auction date. 4. Rejection of the petition on that ground is challenged herein in this revision contending that the petition was filed on the ground of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale of the suit schedule house property below the market price causing substantial injury to the revision petitioner and could have been filed only after the sale and not before. 5. The very provision under Order 21 Rule 90 of the CPC provides for a right to apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it only where an immovable property was sold in execution of the decree. The question of filing of application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC before or on the date of the auction does not arise and the judgment debtor being a person whose interests are effected by the sale is entitled to apply under the provision. Whether the petition is maintainable in law and tenable on facts has to be enquired into on merits by the Court below which could not have rejected the petition on the ground that it was not filed before the auction. 6. The order under revision therefore has to be set aside and the mater has to be remitted back to the Court below. 7. In the result, the order in E.A.S.R.No.2687 of 2010 in E.P.No.21 of 2008 in O.S.No.70 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalaguda, is set aside and the said Court is directed to take the said petition on file, if it is otherwise in order, and determine the same in accordance with law on merits. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly without costs. ___________________________ 8th March 2011 KVR