THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2238 of 2009 ORDER: The second respondent filed O.S.No.139 of 2000 in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, against the first respondent for recovery of Rs.1,31,000/-. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the second respondent filed E.P.No.154 of 2005. An item of immovable property i.e., Acs.9.00 of agricultural land, owned by the first respondent, was attached and brought to sale. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.5,55,000/-. He deposited the amount as provided under the relevant rules of Order XXI CPC. Before the sale was confirmed, the first respondent filed E.A.No.962 of 2008 under Rule 89 of Order XXI CPC with a prayer to set aside the sale. He deposited 5% of the sale amount and the entire decretal amount, as required under the Rule. The petitioner opposed the application on several grounds. Through its order, dated 15.04.2009, the executing Court allowed the E.A., on condition that the first respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.16,275/- towards poundage amount, within ten days. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent. It is rather surprising that the executing Court did not undertake necessary exercise as required under the relevant Rules to ascertain the property that is necessary to fetch the decretal amount. Though the decretal amount was Rs.1,60,333/-, vast extent of agricultural land was put to sale. There is a serious irregularity in the sale itself. Be that as it may, much before the sale was confirmed, the first respondent filed an application under Rule 89 of Order XXI CPC duly depositing 5% of the sale amount and the entire decretal amount within the stipulated time. Hardly, any option is left to the executing Court, except to set aside the sale, once the conditions were complied with. During the course of hearing of the E.A., the petitioner raised an objection stating that the first respondent is under obligation to pay the poundage amount basing upon the relevant rules of Civil Rules of Practice. The executing Court allowed the E.A. subject to payment of the poundage amount. It is strongly urged on behalf of the petitioners that the poundage amount ought to have been deposited within 60 days from the date of sale and since that was not paid within the stipulated time, the E.A. itself is untenable. In this regard, a clear distinction needs to be maintained as regards the amounts that are mentioned under Rule 89 of Order XXI CPC on the one hand and any other amounts that are referable to Sub-rule 3 of that Rule. Even as regards the amounts that are to be deposited under Order XXI of Rule 89(1) CPC, the limitation of 60 days is not absolute. This is evident from Sub-rule 2 of Rule 92 of Order XXI CPC. At any rate, the limitation stipulated for deposit of the amounts mentioned under Rule 89(1) does not apply to the poundage and other charges. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The executing Court shall permit the petitioner herein to withdraw the amount deposited by him as well as the amount representing 5% thereof deposited by the first respondent. In case those amounts have earned any interest, the same shall be passed on to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 07.10.2009 sj