HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.5003 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision is directed challenging the order dated 18.08.2008 in E.P.No.583 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the suit schedule property was delivered to the 1st respondent/auction purchaser under Order 21, Rule 95 C.P.C. in pursuance of a sale certificate. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.183 of 2008. The suit schedule property was brought to sale and sale was held on 02.07.2007. The 1st respondent who was the auction purchaser and who was the highest bidder deposited 1/4th of the bid amount ie. Rs.68,155/- and Rs.9,345/- towards fond-age amount on 03.07.2007. On 13.07.2007 he had deposited Rs.2,32,500/- towards the balance sale consideration and Rs.15,500/- towards sale certificate and filed two memos and the lower Court recorded the same in its docket order dated 17.07.2007. On 18.11.2008, sale certificate was issued and the suit schedule property was delivered to the auction purchaser on 25.2.2009. The lower Court also recorded the factum of delivery of possession through its docket order dated 27.02.2009. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/JDr. is that the 1st respondent/auction purchaser failed to deposit the 3/4th amount within the stipulated period, but he had deposited the same on Rs.13.7.2008. As seen from the above, it is clear that the 1st respondent has deposited the amount on 13.07.2007 as per the provisions of Order 21, Rule 85 CPC. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in ordering delivery of E.P.schedule property to the 1st respondent/auction purchaser. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 24th March, 2011. PNV